Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

MADAM SPEAKER: [MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION
(AMENDMENT OF RULES) BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Tuesday 27 July.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

European Union (Northern Dimension)

Ms Rachel Squire: If he will make a statement on the development of a northern dimension to the EU's common foreign and security policy. [90455]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The objective of the northern dimension is to improve the co-ordination and effectiveness of the European Union's policies and programmes in its northern regions and to contribute to the developing relationship between Russia, the other states of the Baltic region and the European Union. The Government fully support the initiative.

Ms Squire: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming Finland to the presidency of the European Union and in paying tribute to the crucial role that Finland played in the Kosovo peace settlement, especially through its president, Martti Ahtisaari? Does she agree that Finland's initiative late in 1997 in developing a northern dimension to the European Union's common foreign and security policy recognises the interdependence between the European Union, Russia and the Baltic states and the pivotal role that the EU can play in promoting stability in non-EU areas?
What support have the Government given to the promotion of the northern dimension of EU foreign policy, and what action has been taken?

Ms Quin: I strongly support the points made by my hon. Friend. I join her in welcoming the Finnish

presidency of the European Union, and also wish to pay tribute to the officials in my Department who have worked with their Finnish counterparts to help to prepare for that presidency.
I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the Finnish attitude to the northern dimension of EU foreign policy and to the co-operative initiatives that the Finns and others in the EU are trying to build up with Russia and the Baltic states. There are a number of areas of co-operation, such as those signalled by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he visited Russia and Murmansk earlier this year.

Mr. Michael Colvin: How can we have an effective common foreign and security policy without a defence element, which can be achieved only by amalgamating the Western European Union with the European Union? What are the implications of that for a country such as Finland, which is traditionally neutral?

Ms Quin: The Finnish Government, and the Finnish presidency, are keen to work towards strengthening the common foreign and security policy that was the basis of last year's St. Malo initiative. We are working with the Finns and other nations to find the best way to move forward institutionally, but we all agree that practical results are important. The European Union nations, in co-operation with the NATO countries, need to have the capabilities and facilities to make an effective contribution to peacekeeping tasks. That is what the strengthening of the defence and security initiative is all about.

Indonesia

Miss Melanie Johnson: What plans he has to assist progress towards democracy in Indonesia; and if he will make a statement. [90456]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We strongly support the transition to democracy in Indonesia, to which we attach great importance. We contributed more than £2 million in preparation for the first genuinely multi-party democratic elections since 1955. The money was spent on voter education, BBC local radio projects and assistance for domestic election monitors. We welcome the fact that the elections ran smoothly, and we are considering how we should help consolidate democracy in Indonesia.

Miss Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for that response, and for the wide-ranging help given by the Government towards establishing full democracy in Indonesia. Will my hon. Friend be especially mindful, and watchful, of the army's role in the country, and give consideration to the freedom of trade unionists such as Mr. Pakpahan? I hope that the Government will support independent trade unions in Indonesia. The previous Government had the opportunity to do that, but did not take it.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observations. Certainly, the Government have put a great deal of effort into promoting the observance of human rights in Indonesia. I can tell my hon. Friend that


Mr. Pakpahan was released at the start of President Habibie's period of office. We welcome his release, and the other releases that took place at that time.

Mr. David Heath: Of course we all wish Indonesia well in the conclusion of the electoral process. If and when Megawati Soekarnoputri becomes president, will the Government guard against engaging too enthusiastically with her—in the way that was evident with Presidents Suharto and Habibie—until real advances in human rights, good governance and the provision of support for Indonesia's minority peoples have been achieved? Without the stability that will come with the fairer distribution of resources across the archipelago, are there not real risks for the region?

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman may be a little over-enthusiastic, as the election result will not be announced until 24 July, making it a little early to anticipate the process that must be followed after a Government have been formed. The election and the count have been a spectacular achievement in democracy for Indonesia and its 128 million voters.

Rev. Martin Smyth: We welcome that exercise in democracy. Bearing in mind the fact that the Government have yet to be formed and that there will be a referendum on East Timor, has the Minister any thoughts on how democracy might be maintained if speculation is correct that the Indonesian Government are already withdrawing troops and others from Timor?

Mr. Hoon: I am not aware of that speculation. We monitor the situation in East Timor closely, and I held several discussions on it during my recent visit to New York, particularly with my United Nations counterpart. Security is vital in East Timor if consultation is to take place freely and fairly, and we look to the Indonesian Government to create the right conditions.

Ann Clwyd: Is my hon. Friend aware of reports that British-supplied Hawk jet aircraft were seen flying low over Dili, the capital of East Timor, last Thursday, and making two low passes over the town? Diplomats on the spot say that that was a macho gesture to remind the East Timorese of who is in charge. Given that we have been continually told that Hawk aircraft are not used in East Timor, will my hon. Friend investigate those reports and make known his objection to such flights?

Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already written to the Indonesian Foreign Minister to express our concern at press reports that UK-built Hawk aircraft have flown over East Timor. We have reminded the Indonesians that there are no circumstances in which UK-supplied military equipment should be deployed there.

EU Enlargement

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What policy objectives he plans to secure under the Finnish presidency of the EU in relation to enlargement. [90457]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Negotiations to enlarge the European Union have made good progress since the launch of the accession process during the British presidency. Six of the applicant countries have opened detailed negotiations, covering 15 of the 31 chapters of European law. We are working for a commitment by the end of the Finnish presidency to open negotiations on membership with Bulgaria, Romania and others.
The Government are delighted that the Commission post with overall responsibility for external relations, including enlargement, has been secured for a British nominee, Chris Patten. I am sure all his hon. Friends in the Conservative party would wish to congratulate him.

Mr. Swayne: I am sure that the Secretary of State is right on that. However, at the conclusion of the United Kingdom presidency, the Finnish Prime Minister said that enlargement was more problematic than it had been a year before. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the most important item on the agenda of any presidency, and of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, must be enlargement so that an outward-looking Europe can be secured?

Mr. Cook: I entirely agree with that sentiment. The British presidency's priority was, with full consensus, the launch and smooth start of the accession process. The recent agreement on Agenda 2000 provides the financial headroom to do that. I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support, for once, on European policy, and I assure him that we shall press strongly to make a success of enlargement.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Will Turkey be invited to the proposed European conference in the later part of the year? Is there any indication of whether Turkey would accept such an invitation? How does my right hon. Friend envisage an improvement coming about in the strained relationship between the European Union and Turkey?

Mr. Cook: I regret that Turkey did not attend yesterday's meeting of European Foreign Ministers. The invitation remains open to Turkey, and we hope that it will be accepted. It is in the interests of both the EU and Turkey that we establish constructive working relationships, and we are ready to do so when Ankara proves ready.

Mr. John Maples: I join the Foreign Secretary in welcoming Chris Patten's appointment as a Commissioner. It is good to see the overwhelming victory of the centre right in the European elections reflected by the appointment of at least a few Commissioners of that persuasion.
I have been taking a look at Finland's published programme for its presidency of the European Union. It calls for the extension of qualified majority voting and the end of what it calls "harmful tax competition". Translated, that seems to me to mean a further surrender of the British veto and the imposition of a European savings tax. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the British Government will vote against those proposals?

Mr. Cook: First, there is an IGC coming—I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having acquired the


information on that. It will follow on the Portuguese presidency, and the Finnish presidency will be responsible for making preparations for it. If we are serious about the point raised by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)—giving priority to enlargement—the European Union has to carry through the reforms necessary for that enlargement.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that if it had not been for qualified majority voting, we would never have been able to lift the ban on British beef—something that his Government never achieved in all their time in office.

Mr. Maples: Of course, it would not have been imposed in the first place without qualified majority voting. The two issues are linked, because the Finnish presidency document says:
Work will be pursued on the proposals on the taxation of savings and interest and royalties with a view to reaching agreement before the Helsinki Council meeting.
That will not wait for the IGC. These decisions are imminent and the British people want to know whether the Government will stand up for Britain's interests or conspire as usual to undermine them.

Mr. Cook: Of course the Government will stand up for the British interest. Part of that interest is in making sure that industries on the continent do not receive unfair subsidised tax breaks from their Governments. That is why Britain is proud of the fact that a British Minister is leading the working group on such unfair tax competition. If the hon. Gentleman would go out and talk to industry in Britain, he would find that it was as enthusiastic as we are about achieving a level playing field with our competitors.

Mr. Russell Brown: Has my right hon. Friend seen statements from the Governments of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic that they seek membership of the European Union? How does that square with the clear views of Conservative Members who wish to see Britain withdraw from the EU?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point. It is one of the remarkable features of the debate that the Conservative party constantly distances itself from Brussels while the whole of the rest of Europe is queueing up to join the bus that the Tories want to get off.

East Timor

Mr. Andrew George: What discussions he has had with his opposite numbers in the United Nations regarding the present situation in East Timor; and if he will make a statement. [90458]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I had extensive talks with the United Nations in New York about East Timor as well as other issues between 5 and 7 July. The Secretary-General decided that registration for the delayed United Nations-organised ballot should go ahead on 16 July. The United Nations will, however, keep the security situation under constant review. The Secretary-General will make a further assessment of

conditions on the ground half way through the registration period before deciding whether and when the consultation should take place.

Mr. George: In view of the present unstable situation in East Timor prior to the vote, what assessments has the Minister made of the Indonesian Government's apparent intention swiftly to withdraw from the area if the vote goes against them? Does he agree that the Australian Government, which has a joint security treaty with the Indonesians, is now in a strong position to help to bring peace to that area? What contribution will the Foreign Office make towards bringing peace to the area? It is clear that international intervention is becoming more and more likely.

Mr. Hoon: We have sent seven police officers and two military liaison officers to be part of the United Nations mission for East Timor, which is headed by a British United Nations official. It is important that Indonesia fulfil its responsibility to ensure security so that the consultation can go ahead. Contingency plans are being prepared by the United Nations for an early withdrawal by Indonesia from East Timor following the result of the consultation.

Mr. Michael Connarty: In the light of the attacks on the UN posts in East Timor, what have the Government done to try to bring to the attention of the new Indonesian Government the clear view that their pro-integrationist militia will not be tolerated in the period running up to a referendum?

Mr. Hoon: Following the attack on 29 June on Maliana, I summoned the Indonesian ambassador to express our deep concern and to request that his Government bring the pro-integrationist militia under control. On 8 July, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wrote to the Indonesian Foreign Minister about the situation. The EU has been taking similar action. We welcomed last week's visit to East Timor by half the Indonesian Cabinet to assess the security situation. As a result, we anticipate that the situation should be calmer.

Agenda 2000

Mr. Win Griffiths: If he willmake a statement on progress in implementing Agenda 2000. [90459]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): Legislation implementing the vast majority of the Agenda 2000 package has now been agreed. The whole package was supported by the European Parliament in May. Much of the legislation will come into force from 1 January 2000. The Berlin summit deal on the budget and on policy reform made provision for enlargement. Pre-accession aid of 3 billion euro a year will be available to help the candidates to prepare for accession. Substantial structural funds will also be available for new member states joining between 2002 and 2006.

Mr. Griffiths: Not unnaturally, there has been a great deal of publicity in the United Kingdom for the Government's huge success in achieving funding under


objectives 1, 2 and 3 and also in achieving the safety net. That is especially appreciated in Wales. However, there has not been much publicity for what has been done on the other side of the coin—the progress towards enlargement itself. Will my right hon. Friend enlighten us on that matter?

Ms Quin: In relation to preparation for enlargement, the Government and the EU are doing a great deal. In particular, Departments throughout Government are working with their counterparts in the applicant countries to prepare those countries in specific policy matters. I especially commend to the House the twinning scheme which links our Departments with several Departments in applicant countries. In the second round of twinning, we have won more successful schemes than any other country.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is not the prerequisite for entry to the EU, the ability to join the single currency, a serious impediment to the applicant nations of central and eastern Europe? They should have been allowed to join long since. The Berlin wall fell almost 10 years ago; is it not true that the EU has demonstrated itself to be a rich man's club—more interested in protectionism and feathering its own nest than in showing itself as a true community of outward-looking nations to which the countries of eastern and central Europe are welcome?

Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that this year is the 10th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall. However, I do not draw the same conclusions from that as he does. There is much to rejoice over in the transformation that has taken place during the past 10 years. I am very pleased that the countries of the EU—including our own—have built up so many political and economic relations with countries that were formerly behind the iron curtain. Indeed, the whole process of enlargement and the funds that have been attached to it should show that we are serious in ensuring that we build a constructive relationship with the countries from which we were formerly divided.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Although I accept that the Minister herself has visited the applicant countries for EU membership, when will the Government address the deficiency in their senior members' visits to such countries on behalf of the UK? Is it not true that, after two and a half years of Labour Government, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has not visited any of the applicant states? Why is that? Why was priority given to south America and Australia? Is it not true that the Prime Minister has not yet been able to visit any of the applicant states, either? Bearing in mind the fact that Ministers in countries comparable to the UK have kept a high profile, and have advanced the interests of their commerce, in the applicant states, when will the matter be addressed?

Ms Quin: While I appreciate my hon. Friend's strong commitment to the countries of central and eastern Europe, his information is not up to date. There have been many ministerial visits—in fact, I think that there have been five ministerial visits to Poland in the past month. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has visited all

the applicant countries. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has visited certain of the candidate countries and plans to do more: his recent visit to Poland was cancelled, but for a reason that hon. Members on both sides of the House should understand, which is the situation in Northern Ireland. Ministerial contacts across the board have improved dramatically over the past year and I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes those efforts. We shall undertake more visits, but our engagement with applicant countries is already at a very high level.

Mr. Archie Norman: Does the Minister consider it satisfactory that, in the financial forecast developed after the Berlin Council to meet the Agenda 2000 objectives, the financial forecasts for EU budget payments go up by 12 per cent. between 2000 and 2004? Does she consider it satisfactory that, at a time when people are concerned about extravagance and waste in the Commission, the only line in the six years of those forecasts that continuously rises faster than inflation is expenditure on the EU' s administration itself?

Ms Quin: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman does not welcome the financial package that was agreed at Berlin, which stands in stark contrast to the financial packages agreed by the Conservative Governments in 1992 and 1988, under which overall expenditure soared and the bill to the taxpayer was considerable. The most recent round of financial negotiations is the first time such expenditure increases have not resulted. We got a satisfactory solution that included generous receipts to this country in terms of structural funds, but kept well within the ceiling of 1.27 per cent. of EU GNP.

Kashmir

Fiona Mactaggart: What discussions he has held with his counterparts in other Governments about the future of Kashmir. [90461]

Ms Jenny Jones: What plans he has to assist in negotiating a ceasefire by India and Pakistan in Kashmir. [90464]

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: What assessment his Department has made of relations between India and Pakistan; and if he will make a statement. [90471]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I have discussed recent developments in Kashmir with the Foreign Ministers of both India and Pakistan. I expect to meet the Pakistani Foreign Minister for lunch next week. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saw the Prime Minister of Pakistan last week and subsequently wrote to the Prime Minister of India. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), has also discussed the latest fighting with the high commissioners of both countries.
In all those contacts, we have pressed on both countries our support for the Lahore process of dialogue and our concern that that process should not be disrupted by an escalation of conflict. We therefore warmly welcomed the withdrawals from the Kargil heights. We hope that that


will open the way to meaningful dialogue between both countries to address all outstanding issues, including Kashmir.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is high time India and Pakistan resolved their dispute over Kashmir? While India and Pakistan squabble, the people of Kashmir suffer. Does he recall the energy that Commonwealth Heads of Government devoted to tackling apartheid in South Africa? Given that India and Pakistan are both Commonwealth countries, is there a role for the Commonwealth in helping to find a just and lasting settlement in Kashmir that builds on the United Nations resolutions and on the Simla process to bring peace to that troubled region?

Mr. Cook: As my hon. Friend is probably aware, the majority of the population of the Commonwealth lives in Pakistan and India. It pains all members of the Commonwealth to see two strong members of the Commonwealth with so many difficulties between them. I do not know whether there is necessarily a role for the Commonwealth in resolving the tensions between India and Pakistan: in the first instance, both parties would have to agree to seek that mediation. I hope that, now there has been an agreement to withdraw, the way is open to resume the promise that was held out at Lahore of meaningful dialogue between both Prime Ministers, who showed real courage in making that commitment.

Ms Jones: One of my constituents, a British citizen, told me recently that he saw eight members of his extended family killed during the recent conflict in Kashmir. Bearing in mind the fact that the lives of British citizens are being affected by the conflict, and that, last year, both India and Pakistan demonstrated to the world that they have a considerable nuclear capability, may I urge my right hon. Friend to use whatever power he has to press the Governments of India and Pakistan, however difficult it is for them, to stay with the negotiations and make every effort to ensure that the conflict is finally brought to an end? It is beginning to affect us all.

Mr. Cook: I assure my hon. Friend that the content of my conversation with both Foreign Ministers and the contents of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's conversation with the Pakistani Prime Minister were exactly along the lines that my hon. Friend urges—namely, that both countries must, through dialogue, seek to resolve the areas of tension between them. My hon. Friend singles out a worrying aspect of the picture: the near-nuclear capacity of both states. Britain has taken a leading role in trying to encourage both countries to sign up to the global non-proliferation regime, and the task force initiated by Britain met again only yesterday.

Mr. Sutcliffe: My right hon. Friend will know that there is a large Kashmiri community and an equally important Indian community in Bradford, both of which are frustrated and concerned about what is happening between India and Pakistan. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that frustration is caused partly because the 1948 United Nations resolution has not been acted upon? Both communities are frustrated at the failure of the international community to deal with the situation and to

bring both parties together. The solution can be determined only between India, Pakistan and the Kashmiri community.

Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend's last point. This issue must be addressed, in the first instance, by the parties to the dispute: India and Pakistan, who should have regard to the opinion of the people of Kashmir. My hon. Friend touches upon an important issue for us in Britain: we must ensure that the dispute over Kashmir is not imported to this country.

Mr. David Lidington: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that any political settlement must command the assent of the majority of people in Kashmir? Does he envisage a more proactive role for the United Nations, the Security Council and the Secretary-General in trying to bring the different sides of the conflict together?

Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely that any outcome—if it is to be just and lasting—must be acceptable to the people of Kashmir. However, I do not wish the hon. Gentleman to underrate the difficulty of establishing what is acceptable, particularly given the line of control that divides historic Kashmir. Whether there is a role for the Secretary-General or anyone else is in the hands of the two parties. Both sides must be willing to accept such mediation and good offices before the offer could be productive.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is the Indian Government's refusal to accept a United Nations role? Although it begrudgingly acknowledges that there are monitors on the ceasefire line, the Indian high commission does not agree with the resolution that India took jointly to the United Nations Security Council. Will my right hon. Friend therefore use all his powers to ensure that all international diplomatic players exert whatever influence they have on the Indian Government, first, to monitor human rights; secondly, to demilitarise the zone, which has the highest military/civilian ratio in the world; and, thirdly, to allow free and fair elections to take place in Kashmir? We all agree that, while there is a continuing military presence, there is no chance of democracy flourishing.

Mr. Cook: It is correct that, if we are to make progress in addressing the underlying source of the problem, the only realistic way forward is through interim confidence-building measures. They might include strengthening the observance of the line of control, because UN monitors in Kashmir regularly detect violations on both sides of that line; or greater transparency in human rights matters and the observation of human rights by outside monitors. Those measures could form part of a process that would lead to tackling the underlying issues of tension. I hope, when the Lahore dialogue recommences, that it will be able to address some of those, and other, confidence-building measures.

Anti-Semitism (Russia)

Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on anti-Semitism in Russia. [90462]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): We continue to be concerned about anti-Semitic incidents in Russia. As I said in my written answer to my hon. Friend's question on 22 June, anti-Semitic comments by Duma Deputies Makashov and I1yukhin last year caused widespread outrage. The recent stabbing in the Jewish cultural centre in Moscow also reminds us of the dangers of extremism. We instigated European Union presidency representations on anti-Semitism in January, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the issue with the Russians during his visit to Russia in March.

Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her statement. Clearly, there is grave concern in the Jewish community which is fuelled by the growth of anti-Semitic statements such as those that she mentioned and the attacks on synagogues in Moscow and the far east in May, including, most recently, the appalling attempted murder last week of Mr. Kaimonarsky, the director of the Jewish cultural centre in Moscow. Although the Russian Government promise that they will take action, very little appears to have happened on the ground. When Mr. Igor Ivanov, the Russian Foreign Minister, comes to London tomorrow for a two-day visit, will my right hon. Friend raise with him our concerns about the extremely worrying lack of action and find out whether something practical can be done to deal with the problem?

Ms Quin: Certainly, human rights will be one of the issues on the agenda for the discussions between my right hon. Friend and the Russian Foreign Minister, Mr. Ivanov. We constantly seek information about that area of policy via a number of routes, including, not least, our embassy, and we make representations whenever it is appropriate. I also discussed those issues with the President's human rights adviser, Professor Kartashkin, when he visited London earlier this year.

Mr. John Bercow: When the Foreign Secretary made representations about the offensive statements by Russian Deputies, was any apology, whether direct or indirect, forthcoming? In considering the problem of anti-Semitism among the Russian population as a whole, will the right hon. Lady accept that economic adversity, although it can never justify or excuse that evil, provides fertile ground for its continuation? Does she therefore agree that early pressure on the Russians to undertake the reforms necessary for economic progress is of the utmost importance?

Ms Quin: First, shortly after Deputy Makashov's original outburst, President Yeltsin condemned such racial intolerance, and I understand that the Russian authorities have brought charges against Deputy Makashov, so action has been taken.
On the more general issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, obviously we are engaged in dialogue with the Russians on a number of economic and social issues, including economic assistance resulting from International Monetary Fund negotiations. The European Union is formulating a common strategy towards Russia, which is an attempt to have a strategic overview in our relations with the Russians, including economic and social issues. We are concerned to ensure that our policies, particularly on aid and trade, help to tackle some of the problems and have an impact in Russia as a whole.

Middle East

Mr. John Gunnell: When he next expects to meet representatives of the Israeli Government to discuss the middle east peace process. [90465]

Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on the UK's relations with the Palestine National Authority. [90467]

Mr. Tony Colman: If he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with the state of Israel. [90468]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The new Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Ehud Barak, will call on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister tomorrow. We warmly welcome his bold inaugural speech in which he committed himself to achieve
a peace of the brave".
His early meeting with President Arafat and his commitment to implementing the Wye agreement provide earnest of his good intent.
The people of Israel voted overwhelmingly for peace. Britain will help in any way that we can to support the search for a stable and secure peace for all the peoples of the region.

Mr. Gunnell: I join my right hon. Friend in warmly welcoming the change of atmosphere since Mr. Barak took control. However, for the past few years, under Mr. Netanyahu's direction, there was continued settlement building in the west bank and east Jerusalem. In his discussions with Israel, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that it is important to reverse that position to assist the peace process?

Mr. Cook: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that the essential basis for any progress on the peace agreement is the principle of land for peace. For that reason, we have continued to criticise unilateral breaches of the peace agreement by the expansion of settlements on the occupied territories, which we consider illegal. We shall certainly explore that as part of the peace process. Any final settlement will need to be a package, and one acceptable to both sides—Palestinian and Israelis alike.

Dr. Iddon: The announcements from Washington yesterday were particularly encouraging. The Palestine National Authority's economy is badly damaged by severe restrictions on movement of goods and people, especially between Gaza and the north and south of the west bank. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as a further boost to the peace process, it is important to press for implementation of the parts of the Wye agreement that address that very problem?

Mr. Cook: Yes. We warmly welcome Mr. Barak's commitment to proceed with the Wye agreement and to implement it. That must be one of the best steps towards confidence-building before we can start on the final stages of talks. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the inconvenience, irritation and very deep economic impact


of the restrictions on movement in the Gaza strip and the west bank. If we are to ensure that the peace process can continue in a stable and lasting way, we must be able to show the people of Palestine its benefits to them individually and its economic gains to their society.

Mr. Colman: I am sure that the whole House will welcome Prime Minister Barak on his visit tomorrow. It shows the very high standing of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. I am obviously concerned about ensuring that the peace process moves forward at great speed. The Wye plantation agreement was accompanied by a memorandum of understanding on arrangements, should the agreement go forward, between British armed forces and Israeli defence forces. Prime Minister Barak has famously called the middle east
a tough neighbourhood to live in".
As we go forward on the bitter choices of return of land, should not the security vacuum that may arise from it be filled by ensuring the full implementation of the memorandum of understanding between the two Governments?

Mr. Cook: We did sign a memorandum of understanding separately from the Wye agreement, to which we would certainly be committed. We have worked very hard with the Palestine National Authority to assist it with technology and capacity to ensure security, and have provided British advice and support in that effort. It is very important that, although we cannot provide a 100 per cent. guarantee of security, there must be a 100 per cent. effort to achieve security—without which neither side can trust the peace process.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Foreign Secretary welcome signs—according to reports in today's press—that in response to Israeli peace initiatives, the Syrian Government appear to be instructing Hezbollah to lay down its arms and stop waging its proxy war against Israel in the Lebanon? Is he concerned by reports that Hezbollah is apparently resisting those demands? In the context of any peace settlement between Israel and Syria, does he agree that in order to lay many of the ghosts of the past, it is important that the Syrian Government cease their decades of sheltering Aloïs Brunner, who, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, was Adolf Eichmann's henchman in charge of implementing the holocaust in France?

Mr. Cook: I am not in a position to confirm the reports in the press over the past 24 hours about Syria's calling on radical groups to refrain from armed resistance to Israel or to the peace process, but if they can be confirmed, they are very welcome. For today, that is perhaps the appropriate response. Plainly, as we enter into dialogue with Syria, and as Israel carries that forward, there may be other matters to be addressed. If Syria's response is confirmed, it underlines Mr. Barak's courage and wisdom in making a commitment to seek the withdrawal of Israeli troops from south Lebanon in one year. The peace process must be comprehensive; it must proceed on all tracks, not just the Palestinian track. There is now hope that we may be able to take that process forward in the next 12 months.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: May I, like the Foreign Secretary, welcome any progress that

is made on the peace settlement in the middle east and offer the Opposition's support to Prime Minister Barak on the occasion of his visit tomorrow?
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, in the complex and sensitive discussions on the peace process, the Foreign Office should always use Ministers and highly trained professional diplomats? Will he therefore explain why, earlier this year, he used, as an envoy to King Abdullah of Jordan and President Assad of Syria, the Prime Minister's chief crony and Labour party fund raiser, Lord Levy? Will he explain how Lord Levy earned the privilege to represent the United Kingdom in that sensitive area, instead of elected Ministers and trained diplomats?

Mr. Cook: I can give the House and the hon. Lady absolutely no assurance that we shall use only Ministers or official diplomats in areas of sensitivity. If the hon. Lady ever occupies this side of the Chamber, she will discover that it is quite normal, where there are sensitive issues to be taken forward, for Prime Ministers to use special envoys.
Moreover, if the hon. Lady had seen—as I have seen—the telegrams from our posts in Jordan and Syria, she would know that both paint a glowing portrait of the success of those visits, the strength of relations that Lord Levy established and the way in which he was able to take forward dialogue on the peace process with Syria, which may partly have influenced yesterday's statement. I believe that those visits did a good job for Britain and a good job for our relations and the peace process. I wish that Conservative Members would stop carping when we establish good high-level contacts with leaders in the region.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Mr. Barak has been quoted as saying that although he wishes to stop the illegal settlement on Ras al-Amud, it is too late to stop the development on Har Homa. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Har Homa's development would be in defiance of international law and the fourth Geneva convention, and that if the Israeli Government wish to stop that development, they can?

Mr. Cook: My views on Har Homa are well known in Israel and here. Any unilateral breach of the peace process is unhelpful to the peace process as a whole. In fairness to Mr. Barak, he can no more put back the clock to the start of the Netanyahu Government than this Government could put back the clock to 1979. He has to start from the point at which he inherits. We very much welcome the commitment that he has shown to the peace process. We shall be happy to discuss with him tomorrow how he takes it forward.

Iran

Mr. Tom Brake: What plans he has to improve relations with Iran; and if he will make a statement. [90470]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Our policy towards Iran aims to encourage the reforms already under way in Iran while pressing for improvements in those Iranian policies that are of concern.
We strongly support the Iranian Government's efforts to improve relations with their neighbours, to properly enforce the rule of law, and to achieve full freedom of speech. That support was demonstrated by the successful meeting between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Iranian Foreign Minister last September, followed by the exchange of ambassadors with Iran this May.

Mr. Brake: I thank the Minister for his statement. Is he aware that his twin-track policy towards Iran is causing concern among the Jewish community, the National Council of Resistance of Iran and other groups? They consider that a single-track policy that focuses on human rights would be more appropriate. In relation to the Jewish community, will Ministers seek assurances from the Iranian authorities that the 13 members of the Jewish community who are currently detained will have access to family visits and kosher food, will have adequate legal representation, and will have a fair and open trial?

Mr. Hoon: Our twin-track policy does focus on human rights—it is part of the twin track to ensure that where there are continuing concerns about human rights abuses in Iran, we raise those vigorously at every level with the Iranian Government. In particular, on the point about Jewish detainees, I invited the Iranian ambassador to the Foreign Office on 1 July and urged him to ensure that there would be a fair trial and access for visitors, together with legal representation. I received assurances on each of those matters. In particular, I understand that visits have now been allowed.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the reported remarks by leading members of the military in Iran against the policies of the elected President, and the fact that there is clearly a danger of a serious backlash and reactionary moves away from the limited liberalisation that has taken place so far? Will he assure the House that as well as taking up the issue of minorities—including the Jewish minority—in Iran, we will not tolerate any reversion to the dreadful reactionary policies that were adopted under Khomeini?

Mr. Hoon: That is the essence of the Government's twin-track policy—to encourage reform, and at the same time to concentrate on areas of continuing concern. If my hon. Friend is referring to recent events in Iran, I think that it is still too soon to make judgments about their outcome. It is right for the Iranian people to resolve those matters, particularly the role of the army.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Is the Minister aware that a considerable number of hon. Members recently attended a briefing on Iran by the BBC? We were all impressed by the quality and breadth of that briefing. Will he join me in paying tribute to the work of the BBC external services, which probably do more than any other institution to promote knowledge and understanding, especially in countries suffering some form of internal difficulty?

Mr. Hoon: I was not aware of that particular briefing, but I happily join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the BBC on the excellent work of its external services, which serve as a source of information for large numbers of people

around the world who otherwise would not have access to that information, because of the policies of their Governments.

Kosovo

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the reconstruction of Kosovo. [90472]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): My European Union colleagues and I discussed the reconstruction of Kosovo at yesterday's meeting of the General Affairs Council. We will discuss it again next week at the Sarajevo summit of the stability pact.
We have won the military conflict that has liberated Kosovo from oppression, but our task will not be complete until we have won the peace by building a sustainable economy and a democratic society for all the people of Kosovo.

Mr. Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about reports that the United Nations is running out of money to fund the vital reconstruction of villages such as Qirez and Polac, which I visited in the last weekend of June, and where every house, school and mosque has been destroyed?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend, from the evidence of his own visit, is right to draw the attention of the House to the task that remains before us, which is immense. I do not think that the final problem will be one of resources. The European Union and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development together will undertake most of the reconstruction effort, and resources are available to them and have already been earmarked within the EU. However, we are concerned at the slow pace of development on the ground. That is why we supported the appeal by the Secretary-General of the United Nations for a trust fund to start now on small projects that can provide confidence and hope in Kosovo, and why Britain was the very first member of the United Nations to make a contribution, by offering $1 million.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that conditions will be attached to the reconstruction aid being given through the European Community? Will he also say which specific external programmes will be cut because of the additional reconstruction aid agreed by the Budget Council last week?

Mr. Cook: I am not sure what conditions the hon. Lady has in mind. Let us be clear that we are providing the money not to any Government of Kosovo, and far less to any Government of Yugoslavia. The funds being provided for the reconstruction of Kosovo are part of a United Nations effort, of which we are part. We will, of course, want to make sure that that money is used prudently. On the question of the budget, the money will come from category 4, which at present is underspent, and we do not anticipate other parts of category 4 being cut back.

Dr. Nick Palmer: I understand from animal welfare groups that the state of meat control in Kosovo is extremely serious, because the Serbian heads of the meat management departments who controlled the quality of meat have left and taken much of the equipment. It seems to be a general problem that a great deal of the administration of Kosovo is no longer functioning because of the withdrawal of the Serbian management.
A constituent of mine inquired about the possibility of going to Kosovo to help with the peacekeeping efforts in a specialist role, and was told that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was promoting such vacancies for British staff there. That was news to me, as it may be to a number of hon. Members. Will the Foreign Secretary encourage hon. Members to seek constituents who can help in such specialist roles in Kosovo for short-term periods while the economy gets back on its feet?

Mr. Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend on finding a question relating to the reconstruction of Kosovo that I have never previously been asked. I shall consider it and write to my hon. Friend. On the broad principle, he is right. One of the revealing features about the extent to which the 1989 autonomy was cancelled by Serbia, is the stark degree to which all public industry and services were in the hands of Serbian, not Kosovo-Albanian, management. Many of those dismissed in 1989 are still in Kosovo and available to undertake such tasks, but in the short run there is an immense appetite within Kosovo for people with specialist skills who can help in the management of the reconstruction. We have appealed for such people—not just from central Government, as there is also a real role to be played by local government servants working at a local level in Kosovo.

Mr. Paul Keetch: I understand the huge and urgent requirement for reconstruction in Kosovo, but can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that that aim will not divert the Government from their long-term strategic support for other countries in the region, most notably, Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is right. When we travel to Sarajevo next Friday, we will have an opportunity to give the countries of the region the clear message that we are determined that the outcome of the Kosovo conflict will be a turning point for the region and that we will bring down trade barriers with the countries of the region, promote a climate for private investment there, and tackle the security issues which have resulted in far too high military expenditure in some of the countries of the western Balkans. We must ensure that we not only reconstruct Kosovo, but act throughout the region to prevent future conflict of the same kind.

Turkey

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: If he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with Turkey. [90474]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The United Kingdom is keen to

continue to build constructive relations overall with the Turkish republic. I recently visited Turkey from 12 to 14 July, when a number of issues were discussed.

Mr. Wareing: Have real representations been made to the Turkish regime about the way in which it has suppressed the Kurdish population for years and years? How can we regard Turkey as a democracy when it deals with part of its population in that way? What positive steps will now be taken by the international community—to borrow a phrase—to put right the conditions in that country so that it can enter the world community on the same basis as other democracies?

Ms Quin: On my visit, I raised a number of human rights concerns, including the treatment of people within Turkey's own borders with regard to laws controlling freedom of expression and some of the court and legal proceedings there. The new Government have introduced a number of measures to the Parliament in the past month, which are welcome steps, but there are also a number of ways, through our mutual membership of organisations such as the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe, in which those real matters of concern can be pursued.

Cyprus

Mr. Robin Corbett: When he next plans to consult his European Union partners on further approaches to resolve the Cyprus problem. [90477]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): We and our EU partners are in regular contact about Cyprus and continue to give strong support to the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts towards a settlement in Cyprus. The members of the G8, which met on 20 June, and the UN Security Council, which met on 29 June, have urged the Secretary-General to invite the leaders involved in Cyprus to enter without pre-conditions comprehensive negotiations starting in the autumn. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have assured the Secretary-General that he will have our full support in efforts to get those negotiations under way.

Mr. Corbett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will she and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reflect on the fact that today is the 25th anniversary of the cruel and tragic division of that island? I urge her and all Foreign Office Ministers to renew their efforts to persuade the authorities in Ankara to understand that any ambitions that they may have to join the European family of nations cannot be fulfilled unless and until they facilitate a settlement of the Cyprus problem.

Ms Quin: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of today's anniversary, and I know that an early-day motion referring to it has been tabled. He is also right that we should renew and redouble our efforts to make progress towards resolving the Cyprus issue and I made that point forcefully during my visit to Turkey last week.

Points of Order

Mr. John Swinney: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order relates to the title of this afternoon's Opposition day debate on health care provision in the United Kingdom. On 1 July, when responsibility for health policy was transferred from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament, you were a very welcome visitor to Edinburgh for the Parliament's opening. Is it appropriate for a debate on health care provision in the United Kingdom to take place in the House of Commons, bearing in mind the fact that the Scotland Act 1998 has come into effect and legislative competence on health policy has been transferred from Westminster to Edinburgh, or is this another example of the Conservative party's inability to come to terms with constitutional change?

Madam Speaker: No question of order arises. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that the devolution statutes have, of course, altered ministerial responsibility, and they therefore affect questions and Adjournment debates to which such responsibility is directly linked, but debates on abstract motions, such as the one to which the hon. Gentleman refers—[Laughter.] Debates on such motions are not limited in the same way.

Mr. John McDonnell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for not giving you adequate notice of my point of order; I have no excuse save my own incompetence. I raised a point of order during last week's debate on the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill relating to the fact that a Minister has to make a statement before Second Reading on the compatibility of all Government legislation with the Human Rights Act 1998, which the House passed last November. The response of the Chairman of Ways and Means to my point of order was:
No similar provision occurs in the case of either private Members' or private Bills."—[Official Report, 14 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 464.]
That means that the House will debate the Bill without having legal advice on its compatibility with the human rights convention, an onus that I believe was placed on us by the 1998 Act.
In addition, I believe that the promoters of the Bill have received legal advice, but it has not been published. The House has neither its own independent advice nor access to the legal advice given to the promoters. I would welcome your consideration of how we should proceed on that matter.

Madam Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman was advised by the Chairman of Ways and Means that private Bills are not covered by section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998. That Act obliges a Minister in charge of a public Bill to make a statement of compatibility. If he wishes to change the law, he will have to invite the Government to do so or he might have to introduce a Bill himself. If I can be of any further help, I will certainly look at what he has said and come back to him, but I doubt that I can do anything more at this stage.

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I also apologise for not having

given you due notice of this point of order, and I am not expecting an immediate answer. I should like to ask you to reflect on the proceedings last night under the business of the House motion concerning the Railways Bill, as recorded in column 899 of Hansard. A number of issues arose during a fascinating debate. The Deputy Speaker advised us that the matter did
not have to come under a Standing Order",
and that the motion fell
to be determined on its merits.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) asked whether there had to be a Second Reading of the Bill in the next Session, the reply was:
That is not a matter on which the Chair can rule—it is a matter to be elicited in the course of debate."—[Official Report, 19 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 899.]
That experimental procedure—it was quite clear that it was experimental—leaves unresolved a number of important questions, not least the status of any changes that the Select Committee may seek to make to the Bill as a result of its deliberations. That would, in turn, lead on to the question whether such a Bill in those circumstances required a Second Reading distinct and separate from the first Second Reading.
The House is in an odd position. We are in a state of complete uncertainty as to the status of the Second Reading, the Select Committee deliberations and so on. It would be helpful if you would think about this matter, Madam Speaker, and let the House know your views before the recess.

Madam Speaker: The motion that was passed by the House last night was a free-standing motion, and it was not under any Standing Order. Had it been so, that would have been shown on the Order Paper. The effect of the motion is that the Bill is not committed to a Standing Committee under Standing Order No. 63, but stands referred to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. I shall ponder what the right hon. Gentleman said, and if I can be of any further help, I shall come back to him.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During your response to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), the House giggled sympathetically when you used the phrase "an abstract motion". With respect, is that not ducking rather an important issue? What is to be classified as an abstract motion and what is not? Some of us would like guidance on what motions affect the whole of the United Kingdom and what areas—alas, in the opinion of some of us—are no longer the responsibility of the House of Commons. This is a very important issue.

Madam Speaker: I made a statement to the House last week. There is no ducking of any issues. If the House of Commons finds what I say amusing, hon. Members can laugh about it by all means. We should express ourselves in various ways.

Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I, too, apologise to you for not giving you due notice. Late last night in the debate about the procedures that we were to follow on the Railways Bill,


at column 922 of Hansard, I drew the House's attention to Standing Order No. 65, which says:
All Committees to which bills may be committed…shall have power to make such amendments therein as they shall think fit".
I wonder whether you could, on reflection, give us some guidance on whether we are able, in the usual way, to table amendments that the Select Committee would have to consider, as though it were a Standing Committee. If any Member of the House tables such an amendment, how is a Select Committee to handle it, and how is the Committee to report the Bill back to the House for us to consider those amendments at a later stage?

Madam Speaker: As I said to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who raised a point of order with me on a similar issue, I have not been given notice of these complicated questions so I shall report back on those matters.

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I, too, apologise for failing to give you any notice of my point of order, which follows on from that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). He has just pointed out the fact that, last night, the House was advised from the Chair that we should wait to discover whether there would be a second Second Reading, a fact that we were intended to find out in the course of debate. Given that we did not do so, and that you have kindly agreed to look into this matter, can we be told how in future, if such a situation recurs, we are to discover well in advance of any such second Second Reading that it will take place?

Madam Speaker: That may be an issue that has very little to do with the Chair, but a good deal to do with the

Government. However, I will look at the points of order that have been raised concerning the issues that were dealt with last night.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I have already taken a point of order from you, Mr. Dalyell. Please resume your seat.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When you are considering the complicated events of last night, will you bear it in mind that, during our proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker advised us that we were debating a committal motion, and not a continuation motion? With the greatest respect, that would seem to be somewhat at variance with your thoughts this afternoon, which make a great deal more sense to me—

Madam Speaker: Order. They are not at all at variance. It was a committal motion last night.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I apologise.

Madam Speaker: So you should. What is your point of order to me?

Mr. St. Aubyn: My point of order is that you have just told the House that the Bill was not committed to the Select Committee.

Madam Speaker: It was committed to a Select Committee. It was not committed to a Standing Committee under Standing Order No. 63, but stands referred to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. Perhaps hon. Members should listen clearly to what I have to say and refer to the Official Report tomorrow.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hesitate to cross you, but are you prepared to issue a Speaker's certificate to any motion or item of business that is abstract, as this is a matter of considerable consequence to Scottish Members of Parliament?

Madam Speaker: The answer is no. Abstract is a term of art, and I have a very wide vocabulary.

Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries (Amendment)

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Government to consult interested parties on whether to designate the coastal waters off Berwickshire as Scottish internal waters and to report to Parliament; and for connected purposes.
I seek leave to introduce a Bill whose purpose is to reopen the consultation process undertaken prior to the implementation of the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order earlier this year. I am particularly interested in the section of the order which affected 6,000 square miles of what was previously understood to be Scottish waters off the coast of Berwickshire. By virtue of the order, the area—known locally as the Berwickshire bank—now comes under the legal jurisdiction of England.
The Bill, if enacted later this Session, would require the Secretary of State for Scotland to reopen the formal process of consultation with fishing and other interested parties, and report back to Parliament. It may be unusual to introduce a parliamentary Bill for this purpose, but I believe that that is the only option open to Ministers—I note with satisfaction that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is in his place—if local people in Berwickshire, and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, are to have a meaningful chance to have their views considered and heard properly.
The Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order 1999 was introduced to create a Scottish zone within British fishery limits. Scots law for sea fisheries applies within the zone created by the order. The order was an integral part, and inevitable consequence, of the overall political settlement enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998. It sets out the boundaries by listing the necessary Ordnance Survey co-ordinates in schedules attached to the order. It was debated in Committee on Tuesday 23 March 1999.
I fully accept that it is not a trifling matter to seek to revisit a statutory instrument properly laid and debated by the House so soon after it has been implemented. Nor do I make any charge against Ministers who, I am sure, acted in good faith at the time. However, they were advising interested parties, including local Members of Parliament, that there was no cause for any concern in the boundary changes and that there would be no practical difficulties for the fishing industry.
Ministers believed that they got a good settlement for Scotland in the totality of coastline classification as waters adjacent to Scotland, and I agree with that judgment. I certainly agree with the judgment as it relates to the national Scottish position, but I believe that the consultation process—in so far as it was carried out on the local situation—was flawed, and flawed in particular in relation to the Berwickshire bank.
I further believe that the Standing Committee was not in full possession of all the principles and facts used internationally in deciding boundary questions between competing jurisdictions. Moreover, because of a lack of adequate notification, the Committee could not possibly have known of the strength of local feeling against the proposals.
I should like now to deal very briefly, in turn, with each of those matters—the first of which is the defect in the consultation system used. The Eyemouth and District

Fishermen's Association and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation are very angry that the order was made without any of the usual consultations that are held between the Scottish Office and fishermen's organisations. When, for example, the Scottish Office undertook a review of controls of inshore fishing in Scotland, numerous organisations were personally contacted. The Government maintained, however, that the arrangements in the order involved nothing very significant, and that that had been pointed out by the former Scottish Office Minister, the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), who, in Standing Committee, said:
I fear that hon. Members are reading a bit too much complexity into the matter and suggesting that there is something either sinister or cynical about the measure."—[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 23 March 1999; c. 14.]
Additionally, the Secretary of State for Scotland, in his letter to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, dated 13 July, said:
decisions on the location of these"—
boundaries—
are matters solely for the UK Government".
He went on to say that
the location of the boundary line has no substantive impact on the rights of Scottish fishermen to operate throughout UK waters.
Fishermen's organisations, and the fishermen who fish off the Berwickshire bank, do not agree with those propositions.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith), who was a Committee member when it considered the order, said that he was unaware that there had been no consultation with the Scottish fishing industry. He has subsequently asked the Government to reconsider the order and review the east coast boundary.
In the Standing Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was not alone in expressing concern about the implications of what the Committee was being asked to decide. He said:
I retain a certain nervousness. I want to be sure that the principles that he"—
the Minister—
describes have been applied correctly and that, if they prove to have been in error, it is recognised that we shall have to return to the issue, if necessary with a modified order."—[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 23 March 1999; c. 11.]
Therefore, in common with other hon. Members in the Standing Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was totally unaware that the Government had failed to consult properly any of the fishermen's organisations.
Secondly, there are also important questions of international law. The Secretary of State for Scotland has argued that median lines are the commonly accepted approach, used internationally, to determining boundaries. On further investigation, however, and with the help of the Library, I have discovered that the main court in adjudicating disputes on maritime boundaries—the International Court of Justice—has never accepted that equidistance should be an absolute rule. Indeed, in the recent dispute on which it adjudicated—between Denmark, Holland and Germany—it was established that the overriding principle should be equitable settlement, rather than strict geometric equidistance.
Significantly, equitable settlement allows for resource and historic use considerations to be taken into account. Therefore, if a truly equitable settlement is to be reached in this case, a proper statutory period of consultation must now occur.
The third, and final, issue is the order's impact on the local fishing industry. Berwickshire fishermen believe that the new boundary will result in administrative and legal problems—for example, Scottish fishermen accused of an offence in the zone south of the new boundary would be tried in an English court. Apart from considerable time, trouble and expense, an English lawyer would have to be hired, as the vessel's Scottish lawyer would have no right of appearance in an English court.
The order creates the absurd situation of there being two quite distinct jurisdiction boundaries in the sea area east of Scotland and England, off the coast of my constituency. Consequently, fishing vessels operating between those lines, if fishing, would be in England, whereas they would be in Scotland if engaged in non-fishing activities. That is exactly the type of nonsensical situation that Standing Committee members, when considering the order, wished to be assured would be avoided.
Berwickshire fishermen certainly believe that the boundary has always—for at least the past century—been at Marshall meadows. Conventionally, the sea boundary went due east from that point, and, 30 years ago, that was confirmed by the definition of the oil fields' location.
The purpose of the Bill, therefore, is to try to reflect the view of local people and of fishermen's organisations that the issue is serious and that it will not go away. If it is not addressed now, it could produce difficult situations in the future. If it is not dealt with in a constructive and conciliatory manner, the sense of betrayal that local people feel will grow.
Fishermen in Scotland are looking to the Secretary of State to engage in meaningful, fresh consultation. This ten-minute Bill would allow for fishermen's demands to be considered and addressed, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Michael Moore, Mrs. Ray Michie, Mr. Donald Gorrie and Sir Robert Smith.

SCOTTISH ADJACENT WATERS BOUNDARIES (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Archy Kirkwood accordingly presented a Bill to require the Government to consult interested parties on whether to designate the coastal waters off Berwickshire as Scottish internal waters and to report to Parliament; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 145].

Opposition Day

[19TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Health Care

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move,
That this House notes the failure of the Government to deliver improvements in the provision of health care in the United Kingdom, resulting in increased waiting times for patients, plummeting morale in the medical and nursing professions, distortion of clinical priorities and the increasingly widespread rationing of drugs and treatments; and believes that repeated announcements, soundbites and photo opportunities are no substitute for a coherent and effective health policy.
After more than two years, we can now start to compare new Labour's promises with what it has actually delivered. We can compare what it said that it would do, and often pretends that it is doing, with the reality of the health service that patients experience and within which doctors and nurses work every day.
As of this morning, two thirds of the trusts and half the health authorities expect underlying recurrent expenditure to exceed income by the end of the year. More than one third of trusts intend to cut direct service provision this year to balance their budgets.
The debate is about the widening gap between the growth in expectations and the ability of the service to deliver quick results.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Fox: I can deliver quick results, but not that quick. No thank you.
The debate is also about the competence of a Government who make announcements about the same spending over and over again and engage in gimmicks and soundbites to hide the intellectual vacuum in a Department that denies that rationing in our health care system even exists.

Mr. John Swinney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Fox: A surprise appearance. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Swinney: The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of competence and I want to probe that issue further in the context of the motion. The motion is about health care provision in the United Kingdom, but with effect from 1 July, control of health policy was devolved from this Parliament to the Scottish Parliament. How competent is the Conservative party to move a motion about health care provision in the United Kingdom, when that is a matter over which this Parliament no longer has the power to exercise control?

Dr. Fox: I am sure that had the motion been out of order, you would have ruled it out of order,


Madam Speaker. Besides, all citizens of the United Kingdom are entitled to free treatment wherever they go in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, this Parliament is responsible for making the money available for health care in all parts of the United Kingdom—and long may it remain so.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Fox: No, but I will in a little while.
It is interesting to note how the disappointment that now exists among large sections of the electorate came about. On 1 July 1996, in "The Road to the Manifesto"—which for her was to be a short road to the Back Benches—the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) wrote:
Labour will cut NHS waiting times".
The facts are a little different. In March 1997, 30,100 patients had waited more than a year to be seen. By the end of May this year, 48,300 people were in that position—a 61 per cent. increase.
In December 1996, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who was then Labour health spokesman, said in a speech on "A Health Service for a New Century":
I am particularly conscious of the need to avoid upheaval yet again within the Health Service. Change is needed, but it must happen in a sensible and phased way, and it must never become change for change's sake.
However, not only has everyone who works in the national health service been avalanched with paper by the Government's attempts to make the system ever more centralised, but Dr. Ian Bogle, in his first speech as chairman of the British Medical Association, attacked the Government, saying that the pace of change was "frightening", and that doctors were
apprehensive and fearful for their future".
He continued:
Congratulations, Mr. Blair, you have managed to alienate the whole profession.
Then there is the question of political appointments. The then Labour spokesman also said:
We want greater accountability and transparency for the planning and funding decisions made by health authorities, hospitals and GPs. Solely political appointments made to non-executive directorships on the boards of trusts and authorities must end.
However, the figures show that 189 Labour councillors have been appointed as chairmen or non-executive directors on NHS trusts since the general election—posts that can boost their incomes by up to £19,000 a year. By contrast, only 25 of their allies in the Liberal Democrat party, 11 Tories and three independent councillors were chosen in the same period. What a bunch of phoneys the Government have turned out to be.
Far more important than the Government's broken promises is the plunge in morale in the national health service to which Ian Bogle referred in his speech. That plunge, which has happened throughout the country, is clearly evident to those of us who visit hospitals and is

nowhere more visible than in the destruction of junior doctors' morale. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister told the House that when the Government
came to office, 6,500 junior doctors were working more than 56 hours a week—an unacceptable figure.
He was correct. He then said:
Now the figure is 4,800.
That is wrong. The figure is now 8,508; 26 per cent. of junior doctors work beyond the new deal limits. The Prime Minister added:
I am pleased to say that only one junior doctor in six works now for more than 56 hours a week"—[Official Report, 7 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 1024.]
That is incorrect. Only the Prime Minister's arithmetic can turn 26 per cent. into one in six. For the rest of us, the figure means that one in four of all junior doctors in this country are not complying with the new deal. That is an increase of 78 per cent. over the previous non-compliance figures of 30 September 1998. If the Minister thinks that those figures are wrong, I hope that he will give us the correct ones.
What do those figures tell us? They tell us either that the Prime Minister does not speak to the Secretary of State, or that the Secretary of State does not know the figures. Perhaps neither of them really cares about the figures.
The truth is that our junior doctors are starting to work more hours than they did before. Rules govern the length of time that a person can drive a lorry or fly an aeroplane, but the Government do not appear to mind the number of hours that people can guddle around with a scalpel in a patient's insides. The Government propose that there should be no limit on junior doctors' hours for the next four years and that the transition to 48 hours a week will take 13 years. When that was decided, the Secretary of State called it "good news for doctors".

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Fox: In a moment.
Padraig Flynn, the former European Union Employment and Social Affairs Commissioner, said that he was "very, very dismayed" at the decision. He said that it was unacceptable for patients to be treated by doctors who are exhausted, and that such a long transition period was
not politically feasible or morally acceptable. It does not take 13 years to improve work organisation in European hospitals.
Notwithstanding the interference that may come from Brussels on this matter, it is surely right that the Government should ensure that no junior doctor works more than 56 hours a week by the end of this Parliament. I look forward to the Secretary of State giving that commitment this afternoon.

Rev. Martin Smyth: At a time when a senior consultant has been accused of failing in his duty because of overwork, is it not even more dangerous that junior doctors, who are often a patient's first line of defence, work even longer hours than some consultants? Northern Ireland has the highest rate of junior doctors working hours that are too long.

Dr. Fox: When I was a senior house officer in obstetrics, I worked one weekend that began on Saturday


morning and finished at the end of Sunday night. I had no sleep at all and managed to assist in nine emergency caesarean sections. I thought that those days were gone, and I expected that the progress made by the previous Conservative Government in reducing junior doctors' hours would continue. Apparently, however, the move is in the other direction. That is extremely demoralising for junior doctors and terrifying for patients.
Another worry is the rise in non-UK doctors in the national health service. I was surprised at the figures showing the proportion of our doctors who were born and trained here. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State laughs, but will the public laugh when they find out that 18 per cent. of consultants, 67 per cent. of staff grade personnel, 68 per cent. of associated specialists, 31 per cent. of registrars and 38 per cent. of SHOs come from overseas?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman addressing the House or the Strangers Gallery?

Madam Speaker: I hope that he is addressing the House. That seems to be largely what he is up to.

Dr. Fox: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am not so thin-skinned as to be deflected by spurious interruptions that are intended to prevent us from discussing the Government's appalling reputation.
All of us support training in the national health service, but we must hope that it does not become an increasingly international health service.

Lorna Fitzsimons: May I offer the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to praise the rich contribution made in my constituency by overseas doctors, who invest in our health care and in saving lives, as well as contributing economically to our communities? Will the hon. Gentleman say that they are welcome, and that they would be mistaken if they heard any racist overtone in what he has said? I merely offer him an opportunity to clarify what could be seen as—I hope that it was not—a sad insult to the rich contribution of overseas doctors to our health care.

Dr. Fox: I have read a lot in the newspapers about the simplicity of the so-called Blair babes, but I have never heard the case better put.
One of the major problems facing us at present is compounding the drop in doctors' morale. In difficult times in the NHS, doctors and nurses used to be able to console themselves that no matter what resources they had to work with, they could properly prioritise patient care. That has changed fundamentally. My colleagues and I have travelled the country, speaking in particular to surgeons in hospitals. As a result of the Government's waiting list initiative, those surgeons are under increasing pressure to get the lists down, irrespective of what that means for patient care. If it means treating more varicose veins and ingrowing toenails, and keeping those who require cardiac surgery waiting, that must be done. If doctors do not act in that way, they face financial penalties.
Clinical priorities are being distorted. When one talks behind the scenes to sympathetic officials, or even—dare I say it—to sympathetic Ministers, one hears them say

that they understand that that is happening, but that Tony's promise must be fulfilled. Party politics is being put before patient care. When caring medical professionals say that clinical judgment is being distorted, they are simply told that that is how it must be: the promise was in Labour's manifesto, and if those who are most sick must wait longer, so be it. That is a sad indictment of the way in which our health system is being run.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Has my hon. Friend noticed a clear illustration of that point, which appeared in Hansard? During a statement on health on 6 July, at column 828, the Secretary of State for Health was told that a 90-year-old patient at the Royal Surrey hospital, Guildford, had been made to wait more than 24 hours before being given a bed on a ward, and he replied: "The craw can wait." Can my hon. Friend imagine such an insulting remark being made about a patient in a Labour area? Does that remark not prove that the Labour party's true feelings are for their own interest, and not for patients?

Dr. Fox: My hon. Friend—

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): rose—

Dr. Fox: Does the Secretary of State wish to make a point of order?

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Fox: I am not giving way. I have to reply to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is not giving way.

Dr. Fox: My hon. Friend must appreciate that clinical priority is no longer the deciding factor. What matters is what suits the opinion polls and how statistics can be reduced without their accidentally becoming individuals who have families and needs. If the Secretary of State wishes to put the record straight, I shall give way.

Mr. Dobson: I do want to put the record straight. If the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) reads the corrected Hansard, he will find that I was referring to something said by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). Two newspapers managed correctly to record what I had said, even if Hansard did not.

Dr. Fox: I am none the wiser for that correction.
In dealing with clinical priorities, the downgrading of the opinions of medical staff is not in any way the fault of medical staff themselves. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have the very highest regard for doctors and nurses in our health service. I spent all my working time before entering politics working as a doctor in the health service. If the current trend continues, in which statistics


are all-important and patients are downgraded, we shall shortly find ourselves with first-class staff working in a second-class service.

Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend touched on the plight of heart patients. Is he aware that the patients charter specifies that no heart patient should be obliged to wait more than 12 months for cardiac surgery, but that a recent survey of 35 trusts showed that no fewer than 21 of them were failing to meet that target and that some people had to wait up to 17 months to receive the treatment to which they were entitled? Is that not an outrage?

Dr. Fox: It is an outrage and it is a tragedy. The outrage is that patients are being made to wait in order to manipulate the figures. Hernias and varicose veins are being pushed up the surgery list while serious cases that cost more money and take more time are being pushed down it. It is the distortion of clinical priorities that lies at the heart of our complaints about the Government's running of the NHS.
My hon. Friend's complaint about waiting times is mirrored by complaints about waiting lists. Despite all the rhetoric, waiting list figures have started to go up again. They have gone up by 21,197 since March this year. That, the Secretary of State would no doubt say, is an increase of merely 2 per cent., but it is worrying—and not only if one happens to be one of the 21,197. There is a seasonal factor. A rise in waiting lists at this time of year does not bode well for the second part of the year. Waiting times have gone up for many patients. In March 1997, 30,100 patients were waiting more than a year to be seen, but at the end of March this year, 48,300 were waiting—a 61 per cent. increase.

Mr. Geraint Davies: How can the hon. Gentleman reconcile his crocodile tears about alleged waiting lists with the fact that Conservative Members not only want to abolish the road fuel duty escalator, which would cause more asthma and would cost billions of pounds' worth of public money which could otherwise be put into health, but would abolish the escalator on duties on tobacco—a policy that would cost thousands of lives? There would be less money for health and more people would die as a result of the hon. Gentleman's stupid policies.

Dr. Fox: They are not alleged waiting lists. I am citing the Government's published figures for waiting lists. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might want to have that argument with his Front-Bench team. In the seven years I have been in this place, I have heard some pretty poor red herrings to detract attention from an Opposition attack, but that one took the biscuit.
Waiting lists have started to rise again. The number of patients waiting for their first out-patient appointment following GP referral has increased. What matters to patients is that they get the appropriate treatment at the appropriate time. They do not care how many people are in front of or behind them in the queue. The Government believe that the people of this country will believe them when they put patients on a waiting list to go on a waiting list, say that waiting lists are coming down and pretend that the Government are doing well. Do they take people

for fools? Patients care about the time between seeing their GP and getting their treatment. They are not bothered about what statistical measures and accounting procedures are put in place to ensure that the waiting list figures look right.
Department of Health statistics comparing March this year with March two years ago when the Government came to office show that, this year, 208,000 more patients were still waiting more than 13 weeks—an 84 per cent. increase—and 121,349 had waited more than 13 weeks—a 115 per cent. increase. Of those patients, 82,000 were still waiting more than 26 weeks—a 115 per cent. increase—and 50,968 had waited more than 26 weeks—a 92 per cent. increase. All the promises that waiting times and waiting lists would come down were nothing but meaningless hot air, but people know that health care has got worse under Labour.
One of the ways in which the system has got worse is that the Government refuse to accept that there is any rationing in our health care. We all know that there was, is, and will continue to be, rationing in health care as long as medical science is able to provide more than any publicly funded service can afford. That is a matter of fact. To pretend otherwise by entering the state of denial in which the Government find themselves does not help us to move the debate towards a better model of health care. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the then shadow Secretary of State for Health, asked the Minister for Public Health:
Is there rationing or is there not?
The Minister replied,
No".—[Official Report, 15 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 746.]
When I was a GP, health care was rationed; we had to decide whether to state in the referral letter that the case was an emergency, urgent, quite urgent, or not urgent. That is how health care was rationed. As we are told that there is now no rationing, I wonder whether patients with hepatitis C are being refused Ribavirin—a drug that would help them immensely. Is that not rationing? When multiple sclerosis patients in most parts of the country are told that they cannot have interferon, although patients in other parts of the country can have that drug, is that not rationing? That is rationing by postcode—the most unfair rationing of all. When some breast cancer patients pay £12,000 for a six-month course of Taxol, is that not rationing? Are the Government still going to have the nerve to tell the House today that there is no rationing in health care? There is rationing; we accept that. Why can the Government not have the intellectual courage to say what everyone in the medical profession and patients know is true? There is rationing.

Mr. Eric Illsley: Is it not true that the previous Government denied that there was rationing in the NHS? I am aware of that from a personal case. When my daughter was a patient at the Sheffield children's hospital, for month after month the doctors pleaded with me to try to get the Conservative Government to stop the rationing of various drugs in the NHS. Dr. Wales, a consultant at the hospital, was unable to provide drugs for his patients; he had to rely on the patients' GPs to use their own drugs budget to provide the drugs that he prescribed. I received letters from two


previous Secretaries of State—one of whom is in the Chamber today—denying that any form of rationing on those lines took place.

Dr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman was not listening. I was just making the point that, as a practising doctor, I always realised that there was rationing—it takes place now and it will always take place as long as medical advances outstrip our ability to fund them. It does not take membership of Mensa to understand that equation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have a word with Members on the Treasury Bench about the forms of rationing that he mentioned. Does he believe that the argument is progressing when those Members deny that there is any rationing at all in our health care? We cannot move to a more rational debate as long as we remain in this denial process—the intellectual vacuum and thought-free zone that pervades the Treasury Bench.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Fox: No, I do not think I shall. The hon. Gentleman has already interrupted—wholly fatuously—although he had the opportunity to make an interesting point for once.
When one has to go on a waiting list for a waiting list, that is all right because it is a people's waiting list. When one cannot receive cancer treatment free on the NHS, one must not worry because it is the new NHS. When the health service keeps people waiting for their heart surgery so that the Government can keep their election promises, that is okay because they are Tony's promises. What we have—dressed up as health policy—are broken promises dressed in gimmicks and delivered with incompetence. Labour said that Britain deserved better. Britain still does deserve better, but all that we have had is let-down Labour.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the action the Government has taken to turn around the National Health Service by finding £21 billion extra funds for the coming three years, starting building work on 13 new hospitals, modernising every Accident and Emergency Department that needs it, abolishing the unfair and divisive system of fundholding and replacing it with Primary Care Groups putting doctors and nurses in the driving seat, cutting waiting lists, ending 18 month waiting in the NHS, creating the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and National Service Frameworks to promote quality treatment, delivering the biggest real terms pay rise for nurses for 10 years, publishing the most comprehensive strategy ever produced for improving the status, training, pay and job opportunities for Britain's half a million nurses, midwives and health visitors, with 3,800 nurses returning to the NHS so far this year and 2,200 additional doctors in the Government's first year of office; further welcomes the 450,000 more waiting list operations carried out last year plus the 142,000 extra emergency cases treated, and half a million more outpatient cases dealt with; and congratulates the staff on providing record results in what remains the fairest and most efficient healthcare system in the world.'.
Rather than make a statement on an important matter before the debate, it was agreed with Members of the Opposition Front Bench that I should make it before beginning my speech.
In recent years, the number of cases of meningitis has increased. The increase—

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Usually, a statement is advertised to the House. If the Secretary of State is to make a statement now, is it appropriate that parties other than the Conservative party were not notified, and should they have been notified?

Madam Speaker: I have no knowledge of who was notified of the statement—I was not notified myself. However, if the Secretary of State wishes to give information to the House, he should be allowed to do so. If he gave the information outside the House, Members of Parliament would be the first to complain.

Mr. Dobson: In recent years, the number of cases of meningitis has increased. The increase has been caused by meningococcal group C infection, which is often associated with outbreaks in schools and colleges. Last year, that group C infection affected around 1,530 people and caused 150 deaths, mainly among children and young people. I am sure that the House will be pleased to learn that a new vaccine against this infection has been developed, carefully tested and shown to be safe and effective. I am glad to be able to announce that it is now expected to become available on the national health service this autumn, a year earlier than was expected.
The vaccine is being developed by three companies, all of which expect to bring forward production of the vaccine. One company, Wyeth, expects to be the first, with supplies coming on stream this autumn. Following discussions I have had with the company, it has taken steps to increase production capacity and is now confident that it can supply substantially more doses by December than it had originally intended, and even more vaccine next year. The two other companies, Chiron Biocine and North American Vaccines, are expected to be able to supply the vaccine early next year. Therefore, providing the suppliers' timetables are kept to and licensing and procurement proceed smoothly, a new immunisation programme in this country should start in October this year and expand as rapidly as the manufacturers can supply more vaccine.
Because the new vaccine is being produced for the first time, there will not be enough to supply everyone from the start, so it will have to be targeted at the babies, children, and young people who are most at risk. It is proposed that, in the first instance, the new vaccine should be made available for: babies when they get their routine diphtheria-tetanus-whooping cough, polio and Hib vaccinations at two, three and four months; children receiving their first measles, mumps and rubella vaccination at around 13 months; children over four months and under one year who will be recalled specially for immunisation; and young people aged 15, 16 and 17. Children over one and under five will be covered in the second phase, and other age groups will follow as stocks of the vaccine become available. Those priorities have been endorsed by the members of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, the National Meningitis Trust and the Meningitis Research Foundation.
For the rest of this year, stocks of the new vaccine will not be large enough or available soon enough to cover young people going to college and university for the first


time. However, this group, especially those in halls of residence, has proved to be vulnerable to meningitis C, especially in the first few weeks of their first term. To meet their needs, I have decided that the existing vaccine, which is effective only for about three years, should be made available to any people in that category who want it. It is recommended that they get vaccinated before they go to college or university this autumn. If they need it, they will be able to have access to the new vaccine at a later date.
I am making this announcement today so that the NHS can make the necessary preparations for the new immunisation programme. The chief medical officer, chief nursing officer and chief pharmacist are writing today to all those working in the NHS who will be responsible for implementing the programme. It would, of course, have been better if we could have had sufficient doses of the new vaccine to immunise everyone straight away, but that is simply not possible as this is a new vaccine and stocks are having to be manufactured from scratch.
Meningitis fills parents with fear because it can arrive out of the blue and bring a healthy child to death's door in a few hours. The brand new vaccine will help to reduce the incidence of meningitis but it will not bring it to an end. Sadly, the development of a vaccine to counter the remaining form of meningococcal infection is still some years away. A substantial number of people will contract meningitis even when the full immunisation programme is in place, and some will die from that disease. However, at least we are making a start, and my announcement today should give us a chance of almost halving the number of outbreaks and deaths among the children of this country each winter.
Providing everything proceeds as intended, the NHS will be the first health care system in the world to have the use of this new vaccine. I would like to pay tribute to the hard work of the companies and the staff of my Department, the Public Health Laboratory Service, the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research and the Medicines Control Agency for all they have done, and are doing, to expedite the availability of this brand new weapon in the unending fight against illness and death.

Dr. Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way and for giving me notification of this information earlier. When does he intend to move to a universal programme rather than simply a targeted programme? How many people does he think will be involved? Will health authorities receive extra cash allocations to cover this new programme?

Mr. Dobson: There are two points. First, we are utterly dependent on how quickly the three manufacturers can provide sufficient doses of the vaccine. However, I hope that we will have virtually universal coverage by either the spring or summer of next year. Secondly, the programme will be funded centrally and the health authorities will not have to find a penny out of the money that they have been allocated already.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On the substance of his statement, can the Secretary of State tell the House what

cost-effectiveness analysis has been conducted of the announcement and the vaccination? Why did he not make a statement in the usual way?

Mr. Dobson: My officials and the health economists have made their assessments. I looked at those assessments and I decided that it was a reasonable proposition. That is my judgment, whatever others may say. I offered to make a statement in the usual manner but the official Opposition asked me to make my statement in the course of my speech, and that is what I have done.

Madam Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman has made the statement at the beginning of his speech, I will limit questions because I want him to proceed to the general debate and address the Opposition motion. I shall allow a few more interventions.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The announcement is obviously welcome. The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that no one in the House will challenge that desirable outcome. However, is it not obvious why he has made this statement today? In line with the press relations machinery of this Government, when Labour is in trouble it finds a piece of readily accessible good news that it believes will divert the reporting. The Secretary of State could have made this statement yesterday or tomorrow. However, he has made it today because he is facing a difficult debate about general health policy and is seeking to divert attention from, among other things, the figures on waiting lists and waiting times about which my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has challenged him.

Mr. Dobson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has obviously tried to raise the tone of the debate.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Answer the question.

Mr. Dobson: If there was a question. The fact is that we did not get everything nailed down until yesterday. I have a speaking engagement in Liverpool tomorrow and it was necessary to get this information to the national health service as soon as practicable so that it can get on with it.
I think that the Tories should abandon this obsession with spin doctoring. It was alleged in several newspapers and on television and radio by Lord knows who that we had timed the release of information about the people who tried to place a racial block on the use of organs donated from a relative. I was told about the incident and, within an hour, I had issued a denunciation of the practice and called for an inquiry. I did not consult anybody—spin doctors or anyone else. I simply thought that it was right to set the record straight. We are making this information public today because I think that it is the right thing to do.

Madam Speaker: Order. I shall call one more hon. Member, who represents the Ulster Unionist party, to put a question to the Secretary of State on his statement and then I shall expect the Secretary of State and other hon. Members to move on to the general debate on the Opposition motion. I call the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).

Rev. Martin Smyth: This is an abstract debate on the national health service, but I believe that the national


health service is concrete. I take it that the statement refers not only to England, Wales and Scotland but to all the regions.

Mr. Dobson: I can confirm that the statement is UK-wide, even if the Scottish National party Member who has now departed the Chamber would have wished it not to be so.
On the general debate, the national health service certainly needs improvement, and nobody is complacent about that. We recognise that the NHS needs to change, and we have made a start. Some say that we are going too fast, some say that we are going too slow, and some even manage to make both complaints at the same time.
I have to remind Conservative Members of the state of the health service when we took over. There were record waiting lists, and they were rising faster than ever before. The debts run up by the NHS in the year before we took over amounted to £450 million. The number of nurses in training had been cut. The number of doctors going into general practice had been reduced. The investment in new buildings, new plant and equipment was at its lowest for 10 years.
The system introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who accuses me of politicising a statement on meningitis, had set doctor against doctor and hospital against hospital. The pay system for almost all staff was archaic and inflexible. Expenditure on information technology systems had been a scandal almost from start to finish. There had been no preparation for the millennium. Violence against NHS staff was soaring. We have made a start on changing that.
Despite the increases in the past two months, the waiting lists are 60,000 lower than those that we inherited. Last year, 450,000 extra people from the waiting lists were treated, as well as 142,000 extra emergency cases and more than 500,000 extra out-patients. The debts accrued by the NHS last year totalled £12 million, compared with the £450 million run up in the Tories' last year in office.
We now have the highest number of nurses in training—15,000—for six years. The applicants for places in nurse training have doubled compared with the previous year. There are 481 primary care groups throughout the country, with doctors and nurses in the driving seat. It has been necessary to invest £300 million in dealing with the millennium problem. An extra £21 billion is going to the NHS over the next three years, and £18 billion of that is for England.
This year, £110 million is being invested in bringing every accident and emergency department up to scratch. An extra £350 million is being invested in new equipment, and £100 million is coming from the lottery for equipment to diagnose and deal with cancer. Thirty-seven new hospitals have been given the go-ahead, and 17 of them are already being built. Despite that, public capital is also being increased by 50 per cent. over the next three years.
I do not know what the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was saying from the Front Bench about overseas doctors but I can tell him that, since we came to power, prejudice and discrimination against overseas doctors in the giving of distinction and merit awards has been stopped. There has been a 50 per cent. increase in the number of such doctors who have received those awards. We owe a great debt to them. The idea that if people

do not graduate from medical school, we can expand the number of doctors without getting some from abroad is preposterous, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. He ought not to attack overseas doctors.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: rose—

Mr. Peter Viggers: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not because I have to get on.
When Opposition Members talk about the appointment of chairpersons and non-executive directors of boards, I am very proud to stand here and say that for the first time in the history of the health service—and of any public body in this country—50 per cent. of its members are women and 12 per cent. are from black and ethnic minorities. I am proud of that and I am glad that I did it. We have reduced the number of mixed-sex wards. The nurses' pay increase this year was the best for 10 years. Two thirds of qualified nurses are now earning more than £20,000 a year.

Mr. Blunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No I shall not.
We are changing the grading system that held down the promotion of nurses. We have introduced nurse consultants so that the top pay for nurses will go up from £27,000 or £28,000 a year to £40,000 a year. As the Prime Minister announced, there is a new and expanded role for nurses, which was welcomed by the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and Unison but denounced as a gimmick by the Tory Front-Bench team.
We are also trying to ensure better quality across the health service and that we get away from the postcode differences that have developed. With the support of the medical profession, we have set up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to give authoritative and independent guidance to the health service. We are establishing national service frameworks to lay down what should be provided in the treatment of people with heart disease, old people, mentally ill people and those with diabetes across the country. We are also obliging all trusts to undertake a duty of clinical governance so that, for the first time, instead of just looking at the books, they will have to consider the clinical performance of their units to ensure that they are up to scratch. We are putting in place the Commission for Health Improvement to back them up.

Mr. Viggers: The Secretary of State's amendment says that the Government are
modernising every Accident and Emergency Department that needs it".
How dare he say that with what in anybody else would be bare-faced cheek when he knows perfectly well that he is closing the accident and emergency unit at the Haslar hospital in my constituency and, despite his bland assurances, making no effort to provide adequate accident and emergency cover for my constituents?

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman ought to know, for a start, that we have modernised the accident and emergency department at the Portsmouth hospital.


The decision to close Haslar hospital was not for me but, as it is a military, naval and Air Force hospital, for the Ministry of Defence. I have said to his constituents—and meant it—that we must ensure that the arrangements implemented following the closure of Haslar meet the full needs of people who live in the area, and I shall ensure that that is done.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way.
We have also, partly at the behest of Tory Members—that is the truth—tried to ensure that, for the first time, standards are set and met for the provision of cervical and breast cancer screening services, which had been dispensed with under the previous Government. We have made sure that more effort is targeted on improving the health of people in the worst-off areas through investment in health action zones. We have provided an extra £700 million for mental health services over the next three years, largely to be spent on extra beds and new staff. We are already negotiating with consultants about a future consultant's contract, and more people are opting to become general practitioners.
The hon. Member for Woodspring knows that what he was saying about junior doctors is somewhat adjacent to the truth. We agreed with junior doctors much more rigorous standards for judging whether the new deal was being complied with. When we did that, we said that it would make the figures worse, and it has. However, comparing like with like, the number of junior doctors working longer hours has been coming down since we have been in office—and it will continue to come down.
Junior doctors have quite rightly been saying that they are concerned about their hours, their working conditions and the conditions in which they wait to work. We have been having meetings with them to try to improve matters. Of late, their approach at meetings has been to make a very substantial pay demand, and we have had to explain that the pay of junior doctors, like all other doctors, is a matter for the Doctors and Dentists Review Body. We either have review bodies or negotiation; we cannot use the review body decision as a starting point for negotiations. I hope that we can make some reasonable arrangements with junior doctors' representatives but, as the British Medical Association has recently reaffirmed that it wants to continue with the review body, I assume that they do.

Dr. Fox: So when the figures for junior doctors' working hours—published by the Government—show that they are increasing, they are actually decreasing. That is interesting newspeak, even from the Government. However, I wonder whether the Secretary of State would reconsider a figure that he just gave us. He says that the number of doctors entering general practice is increasing. There has actually been an 18 per cent. reduction in the past two years.

Mr. Dobson: Not according to the figures that I have. There is no point in disputing figures over the Dispatch Box; I shall sort this out with the hon. Gentleman later.
We have also made substantial efforts to make working in the national health service safer for all staff. There was a massive increase in the number of people who were

assaulted and abused. We have been trying to improve the situation for nurses and ambulance staff—people working in accident and emergency. When I discussed that with people from the BMA, they said that the previous Government had said that nothing could be done about it—it was the sort of society that we live in these days. It may be the sort of society that the Conservatives want to live in, but we are not going to.
We have just completed successful negotiations with representatives of the pharmaceutical companies and brought about a 4.5 per cent. price reduction in the cost of drugs to the national health service, which will save the health service £200 million and has ensured that research-based British companies can continue to be research based.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Dobson: We have introduced other new developments. NHS Direct, the 24-hour nurse-led helpline, now covers 40 per cent. of the country and will cover 60 per cent. by December. I assume that that will not be attacked by the Tory Front-Bench team because it was welcomed by them the last time that we announced it. It is working very well.
We are developing a limited number of pilot schemes for walk-in centres in city centres, shopping centres and city-centre hospitals. There has been some criticism of that idea on the grounds that the doctors do not like it, but we invited people to apply to run them, and 99 places in the country applied for the right to operate a walk-in centre. All 99 had to have the agreement of the GP-dominated primary care group in their area, and I am very sorry that I have had to disappoint 80 of them and announce only 19.
Walk-in centres are intended to modernise the provision of care in various areas. We shall consider their impact on other services in the areas, but they are popular with the doctors who have applied.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Dr. Peter Brand: rose—

Mr. Dobson: I give way to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand).

Dr. Brand: Is it not human nature, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if you are offered a free good in addition to the work that you are already doing, you will say yes? However, that does not square the profession's problems, in that resources are being taken up and top-sliced from the core services of the NHS.

Mr. Dobson: They have not been top-sliced because the resources are taken from the modernisation fund and had not previously been allocated. Dr. James Kingsland, a GP from the Wirral who has been visiting and considering the various applicants, says:
It is very much new money available for general practice, to complement the primary care services already in place. It is cash for primary care groups. By the very nature of their applications, they have to be PCG supported. It is a GP-led initiative.


He is right, and it is working.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Dobson: We are trying—although we fail at times, and we are not making as much progress as we should like—to modernise the national health service. We all know that the modern Tory party wants to undermine and privatise it. We have only to consider the history as it relates to the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). As the third shadow Health Secretary since the general election, she advocated substituting private health insurance for large parts of the national health service, and has apparently been promoted.
The right hon. Member who was a deputy leader of the Tory party and who rejected the idea of health insurance as barmy has been sacked. If we look at what the hon. Gentleman who is now the Tories' representative has said in the past, it appears that he, too, has a fixation about shifting to the private funding of health. In 1993, it was reported that he had helped the Association of British Insurers with a document entitled "Transfer of Responsibility from the Public to the Private Sector", which urged an expansion of private medical insurance beyond the current policyholders, through tax incentives to the under-60s or through contracting out certain NHS benefits. That fundamentally undermines the concept of the NHS, but it is apparently the Tories' line.
Every time Conservative Members speak in their constituencies, they demand more money for their bit of the health service, but they do not vote for that in the House. The shadow Chancellor described our plans for spending on the NHS as "reckless", and said that when the Chancellor had been goaded on health and education, he had "gone soft on spending." What we say is decent investment in improving the health service, the Tories regard as reckless, stupid spending.
The NHS is far from perfect; it never will be perfect. It is improving, but it will take us a long time to turn things around. So much of it depends on new additional staff. It takes a long, long time to train a doctor. It takes three years to train a nurse or a midwife. We cannot turn things around in a day, but the NHS is getting better. It is not getting better as quickly as we would like. However, it is getting better, and it will get better still.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We welcome the debate. We welcome the announcement that, surprisingly, was made at the beginning of it, although it would have been better if the announcement had been made in the usual way. I do not attribute the fault entirely to the Secretary of State, but announcements on important specific matters should be separated from debates on the health service in general. This is a debate about the Government's record after two years in office.
We welcome the fact that the Conservative Opposition have flagged up a series of issues in the health service where the Government's record clearly has not lived up to expectation. Although the Secretary of State made the case that there have been some improvements in the health service—that is unarguable—it was noticeable that, on the assertions and allegations made by the Conservative party, he did not have an answer.
There has been increased waiting time for patients. There has been plummeting morale. There has been a distortion of clinical priorities. There certainly has been increasingly widespread rationing of drugs and treatment. One of the key propositions on which the Government came to office was that there would not be a difference of treatment for patients depending on where they lived. That is not the case now. The situation has not improved under the Government, and we still have postcode rationing, as we did two years ago.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: Not yet.
The Government came to office against the background of the public saying, first, that the NHS was the issue that mattered most to them, and secondly, that they wanted the Government to spend more on the NHS—not just more, but more as a share of our national wealth. That has not yet happened. More has been spent, but the Government have not yet made the commitment to spend more as a share of our national wealth.
When will the Government start delivering on the key promises that they made to the electorate two and a quarter years ago?
We will save the NHS",
they said in their manifesto. Their first promise was
100,000 people off waiting lists".
Two and a quarter years later, in England, that figure still has not been achieved.
In its manifesto, the Labour party stated that it
commits itself anew to the historic principle: that if you are ill or injured there will be a national health service there to help; and access to it will be based on need and need alone—not on your ability to pay, or on who your GP happens to be or on where you live.
What one gets from the NHS still does depend on where one lives, and we want to know when that, too, will change.
The public feel that they have been betrayed or let down on a number of other matters. There are significantly fewer beds—more than 5,000 fewer in the major specialties in England. Nearly 100,000 operations have been cancelled on the day that the operation was booked. Up to April this year, investment was nearly £500 million lower each year than it would have been on the projections of the outgoing Conservative Government. This financial year, NHS trusts and health authorities in England started the year £163 million in debt. We read in the papers yesterday that Wales also now has a £72 million deficit, which means that, on the basis of the current United Kingdom allocation of money, the NHS there may have to close trusts and hospitals.
The Secretary of State has made progress on appointing more women and more members of minority ethnic communities to run health service boards and authorities, but he has not answered the allegation that, during the past two years, he has packed the NHS with more and more of his people. Given the accusations that he and his party levelled at the Tories in office, to increase the number of Labour appointees to NHS trusts' non-executive posts from eight to 226 Labour activists is a complete contradiction. If that is not cronyism, I do not know what the public think it is. Despite the number of


women, members of ethnic minority communities and people with disabilities appointed, that record, good as it is, is tarnished by the fact that the Government have insisted on so many people coming from their party.
Some of the stories, apparently true, about the sort of people appointed in the Prime Minister's part of the world, in Sedgefield and round about, who appear to have been appointed simply because they were local party activists, just undermine the credibility of proper management of the NHS.

Mr. Dobson: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that a considerable number of the Labour supporters appointed are women, black and Asian, who therefore make a big contribution to the increase in the number of women, who are up to 50 per cent., of appointees, and the number of black and Asian representatives, who are up to 12 per cent? That is a good thing, and I shall keep on saying that it is a good thing, whatever anybody else says.

Mr. Hughes: I have made it clear to the Secretary of State—I have said it to him privately as well as publicly—that to get a better gender and ethnic balance and a better inclusion of people with disabilities in NHS management is clearly a good thing. But if he is saying that he is willing to appoint those people, particularly or only if they are Labour supporters, that is not a good thing, and the sooner the Government seek an agreement across parties and beyond parties about appointments, rather than consulting and then ignoring what they are told, the better. I have practical experience of a consultation that was not followed, because Labour people were appointed against my advice.

Mr. Bercow: I hope that I do not fatally damage the hon. Gentleman's prospects by telling him what a good speech he is so far making. Given that the Secretary of State referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and to the supply of drugs, does the hon. Gentleman agree that my constituents, Caroline Cripps and Marc Smith, and constituents of other right hon. and hon. Members, who are suffering from multiple sclerosis, are entitled now to ask the Secretary of State exactly how long they are supposed to wait and suffer before NICE issues definitive guidance? Does he further agree that the premise upon which that guidance, when it ultimately emerges, is based, should be that, where it is judged to be clinically appropriate to prescribe beta interferon, it should ordinarily be prescribed?

Mr. Hughes: I understand and accept the general premise of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, and if he bears with me for literally about a minute, he will see that, in my list of specific questions for the Secretary of State, there is one relating exactly to the equality of access to drugs, which was promised in Labour's manifesto when it sought office two years ago.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I will in a moment.
Labour has clearly failed on a final matter: it kept promising us that the famous waiting list targets would be met—not that there should have been such targets in the

first place—but that great day has also not yet dawned. There has been not a reduction of 100,000 in the waiting lists—even if that had been the right target—but a considerable increase in the number of people waiting to get on to the waiting list, as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said.
I have to say that the recent extraordinary comments of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State about the attitude of the public service in general have not helped. Only two weeks ago, the Prime Minister told the British Venture Capital Association:
You try getting change in the public sector and public services".
People in the NHS, who have been subject to change after change after change, did not take that kindly. I should have thought that the Secretary of State, who has traditionally been a good supporter of the public services, would have been well advised not to add fuel to the fire by accusing those in the NHS, and doctors in particular, of
failing to keep pace with the expectations of the people".
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) attended the British Medical Association conference in Belfast and doctors' leaders were clear about the fact that they respond to the Government's requests for change, but they want a bit more support from them and a bit more understanding of their position.
I shall list the questions that the Government must answer after two years in office and at the end of the parliamentary term. The Secretary of State may be being considered for a move in the reshuffle, or he may stay in his current post, so he could usefully give the answers to the Prime Minister as well as to the country and the House.
When will Labour deliver equality of treatment for patients in the NHS, wherever they live? That question was asked by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). When will it deliver equality of treatment for NHS staff, wherever they work and whatever their race? When will it deliver a reduction in the time that people have to wait for hospital treatment in the NHS after referral by GPs? When will it deliver its so-called early pledge to cut by 100,000 in England the waiting list for treatment in the NHS? When will it give up prioritising waiting lists over waiting times in the NHS? When will it make sure that we have enough consultants, hospital doctors, GPs, nurses, midwives, dentists and other professionals? What is the time scale? Is it a year, two years or 10 years? We have never been told the date. When will the Labour Government put an end to the reduction in the number of beds in the NHS? When will they reduce their commitment to use private finance for capital building in the NHS? When will they make a commitment to pay for all long-term nursing care in the NHS? That was expected from a Labour Government. Lastly, when will Labour increase the share of our national wealth that it commits itself to spend on the national health, including the NHS? We have never heard a word about that from them.
I do not want to elaborate on my first point, because equality of access has been discussed so often in the House, by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) among others, that the case has been well made.
However, I shall elaborate on my second point—racial discrimination in the health service. Not many months ago, the House considered the Health Act 1999, and my hon. Friends and I tabled amendments in Committee and on Report that would have ruled out discrimination in the health service. They were rejected by the Government. The Secretary of State subsequently referred to the incident in Sheffield where it appeared that somebody had donated an organ for use on the basis that it could go only to a white person, and that was accepted. When that became public knowledge, the Secretary of State suddenly said, "Perhaps we need a change in the law to outlaw discrimination in the NHS." My hon. Friends and I, with the backing of the Commission for Racial Equality, argued for that some months ago and it would be helpful to know before the end of the debate whether the Secretary of State accepts that that is now the case.

Mr. Dobson: I am advised by our lawyers—the hon. Gentleman can give that whatever weight he likes—that the Race Relations Act 1976 applies in full to the NHS. If it does, why do we need to change that?

Mr. Hughes: I should be happy to debate that with the Secretary of State outside the Chamber, but my advice and understanding, and that of the CRE, is that not all matters relating to employment, which I shall come to, and to treatment, are governed by the 1976 Act. A general duty of non-discrimination would ensure that the Sheffield case did not arise, and would also cover events such as old people being turned down by the health service and discrimination on other grounds.
I have been approached by colleagues in Rochdale—this may interest the hon. Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons)—about a severe case of racial discrimination in the health service. On 24 June last year, the Rochdale Healthcare trust was visited by representatives of the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and a dean from Manchester university, Professor Hayden, who was acting on behalf of the colleges to examine training in the Rochdale health service. At the end of her examination she said:
finally I am disappointed not to find many UK graduates employed in your hospital. I am giving you a clear warning that when I come back in two years' time if this has not changed then I will remove some of the funding for training.
That comment caused great distress to people working in the health service in Rochdale, where recruitment is on the basis of application and ability. Since then, the dean has made only a statement that her comments were misunderstood, and not a full apology. There is no confirmation that her comments will not have an adverse impact on the hospital's assessment in the future. I know that the Secretary of State has received a copy of at least some of the correspondence. One of the hon. Lady's predecessors, Sir Cyril Smith, was asked if he could intervene to ensure that we never have such a practice again.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Gentleman give way, as this matter involves my constituency?

Mr. Hughes: Of course, I shall give way in a second.
Will the Secretary of State investigate what happened? Will he ensure that that trust and all others are never again at risk because of the practice of recruiting more overseas graduates?
Given incidents such as those in Rochdale and Sheffield, will he agree to allow the CRE to undertake an investigation into racism in the health service? Will he bring to the House also the result of a further inquiry into how we can hold the royal colleges to account, because they tell the health service what to do with no accountability to Parliament or to the NHS? Some hospitals have been closed because the royal colleges have said that there was no suitable training. It is time that those professional organisations were held democratically accountable, because they have significant authority throughout the country.

Lorna Fitzsimons: I should have liked the courtesy that the hon. Gentleman asked of the Government Front-Bench team. He raised an issue with which I have been dealing. He waded in, I am sure with utter sincerity, but with political opportunism, which I have got to know well locally. If he cares so much about the health service in Rochdale, he should advise his colleagues that, rather than scaring old people during a council by-election by saying that the council was shutting a hospital, they should acknowledge the investment of £28 million in a new hospital, £15 million in a health action zone, and £27 million in new money for new services.
I have taken this case up with the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Surgeons. If the hon. Gentleman had cared to ask me about it, we could have fought together, because I agree with him about the problem of the Royal College of Surgeons and its intervention in the Bury and Rochdale health authority.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady's comments speak for themselves.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to distinguish between overseas doctors and UK graduates from black and ethnic minorities? It is completely unacceptable for UK doctors from black and ethnic minorities not to have exactly the same treatment as white UK graduates. There may be issues that affect overseas doctors, whether they are black or white. For those of us who care about race relations in the NHS, it is more helpful if we are clear on precisely what we are talking about. Moreover, as soon as the Overseas Doctors Association changes its name, the better.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Lady is right to make the point that there are two different issues. However, it is clear from the correspondence that it is as wrong to discriminate against somebody because they graduated from an overseas university as it is to discriminate on the basis that someone who graduated from a university in this country is a member of an ethnic minority community. The issue—which caused great offence—concerned discrimination, and a suggestion that the Rochdale trust might not be funded if it did not reduce the number of people whom it appointed from overseas universities. That cannot be acceptable. I hope that the Secretary of State will make that clear, and that he will deal with the person who said that that was appropriate policy.
The Government's surprising endorsement of the private finance initiative—contrary to all their arguments when in opposition—is not finding favour either within


the NHS or, significantly, outside. It is no good pretending that there is a further £8 million for investment in the NHS when £1.5 million of that is new money and the rest is entirely arrived at by the selling of assets.
A letter that the Secretary of State may have seen—accompanying a BMA press release of 16 July—stated that, in Edinburgh, the Scottish Office had confirmed that the Government had rejected greater bed numbers for the PFI flagship hospital as not affordable. It is entirely on the basis of cost that PFI schemes are now being approved or not. I challenge the Government to make it clear where, if anywhere, a PFI scheme has resulted in more beds and more resources than previously, as opposed—as has happened in every case so far—to fewer beds and fewer resources.
The Liberal Democrats are clear that not just the public demand, but the need of the patients requires that a greater share of our national wealth is dedicated to national health. It is surprising to us that the Labour Government have never made that commitment. They have made it for education, but they have been silent on health. Some of the pressures that the NHS is under, some of the lack of morale among NHS staff and some of the failures set out in the motion could be addressed if the Government were brave enough to say that, to have a decent health service for the next century, rather than funding it just a bit more every year, we have to give it a significant boost in funding, so that we as a country spend on the health service what the country believes that it needs.
We look forward to the Secretary of State saying something like that, but two and a quarter years have passed and nothing has yet come from his lips.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement on meningitis. As the representative of a constituency where there have been fatalities through this terrible problem, I know that his announcement will be widely welcomed. I know how anxious many parents are in my area and elsewhere about this problem.
I have had some difficulty in understanding the Conservative party's tactics over the past few hours. I was in the Chamber at 2 o'clock this morning on either the eighth or ninth totally pointless Division. I do not understand the purpose of such an exercise, where there is no debate. All that appears to be happening is that we are wasting huge amounts of public money in keeping in this place large numbers of people—the staff—who could be better off at home in their beds, preparing for the following day's work.
I do not understand those tactics, and I do not understand the tactics of the Tory motion which I read at 9.30 am—after half a night's sleep. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Thank you for that sympathetic response. In drawing attention to the comparative health policies of the previous Conservative Government and the new Labour Government, the motion draws attention to the paucity of the Conservatives' thinking on health care.
I listened carefully to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who has now left the Chamber. I apologise for referring to him when he is not here, but it is not my fault that he has left the

Chamber. He did not propose one policy of any type to deal with the concerns that he expressed. Today's official Opposition motion suggests not one idea of what they would do to address those issues if they were in government.
I was disappointed also with the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—for whom I have some respect; he has at least some knowledge of health issues, and some belief in what he says—as he was unable to offer any real policies on what he would do were he Secretary of State for Health.
The official Opposition's motion on health is the thinnest motion that I can remember debating in any of the numerous such debates that I have attended in my mere 13 years in this place. Their motion is petty, superficial and only a token attempt to imply that they have some interest in the concept of collective health care—which they have opposed since voting against establishment of the national health service in 1946.
The issue of collective health care highlights the ideological division between the Conservative party and the rest of the nation—the decent-thinking people who believe in collectivised health care, and who believe that we should have a system ensuring that those who are ill are appropriately cared for by the state.
For the Tories, health is essentially a matter for the individual, and a marketable commodity. I have listened carefully to the debate, to detect whether any contradictions are emerging in the Tories' policy commitments of the past two years on shifting patients into the private sector—which is the one health policy that they have proposed in that time.

Mr. Philip Hammond: My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has made a very clear commitment that the next Conservative Government will increase, year on year, in real terms, spending on the national health service. That is the clearest possible policy commitment, and the clearest possible indication of the Conservative party's commitment to the NHS.

Mr. Hinchliffe: That does not square with the Tories' attack on the Chancellor of the Exchequer for diverting resources into the national health service. The shadow Chancellor attacked Labour for delivering £21 billion to the NHS.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has also not dealt with my key point. If he has attended our health debates, he will have heard the various statements that have been made. On a number of occasions in the Chamber, I have debated the private sector issue with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)—who now shadows the Home Secretary—and she has quite categorically stated her belief that, to deal with what she perceives as a crisis in the national health service, we have to make greater use of the private sector and ensure that more NHS patients are sent to the private sector.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has, however, never been able to deal with the rather fundamental point about the source of private sector staff. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge knows as well as I do that private sector staff come entirely from


the national health service—which trains people, many of whom we lose to the private sector. Therefore, if the Tories are pushing staff into the private sector, they are further denuding the NHS of staff. It is also nonsense for the Tories to express concern about junior doctors' hours and consultants' work loads. I should like briefly to deal with the previous Government's record.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hinchliffe: No; I have given way once already.
We should consider what the previous Government's 18 years in office meant to people in my constituency and to people across the country. The previous Government introduced the internal market—and I served on the Bill that introduced it. I also remember the House's debates on that Bill. Nevertheless, whatever one's views on the internal market itself, the philosophy underlying it plunged the NHS into cut-throat competition. The idea behind the internal market was to encourage hospitals to compete against hospitals, and doctors against doctors.
The philosophy behind the internal market was fundamentally opposed to that of the national health service—which I had thought that almost everyone believed in. Over the years, even Conservatives in my area—but certainly not the previous Government—subscribed to the NHS philosophy.
On fundholding, I have provided facts, figures, names and addresses of my constituents who had been told that, as they were not patients of general practitioner fundholders, they could not gain access to certain hospital treatments in my area. That is on the record; the names of the people are known. I am not making this up. There was a two-tier system in my area.

Mr. Illsley: The Sheffield hospitals made no bones about it; when the previous Government were in power, they made a public statement that they would not accept patients whose funding might run out as they were not from fundholding practices.

Mr. Hinchliffe: The two-tier system was a fact of life, an inevitable consequence of the move to fundholding. The Conservatives cannot deny that, and they were not unduly worried about it, because in a market there are winners and losers, and they were more concerned about the winners.
My work background was in local authority social services, so it affected me personally when the Tory Government drove a wedge between the national health service and social services. The present Government are trying to repair the damage, and get the two back together.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the announcement about the royal commission, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who is on the Opposition Front Bench today, had the brass neck to ask what the Government intended to do about the long-term care crisis. That crisis was entirely created by the Tory Government, who withdrew long-term NHS care from old people and, at the same time, shoved public money into the privatisation of community care. The massive expansion of private care and nursing homes created the crisis.
When I think about the people in my constituency and elsewhere, what particularly concerns me is the fact that that was a gross betrayal of the generation of people who

delivered the national health service. They had paid tax and national insurance into the system all their lives, in the belief that when they needed care, they would get it free from the national health service, yet when they did need it, it had gone. They had to pay all over again for what they had already paid for throughout their lives.
For the Tories, public health is a politically inconvenient non-issue. It does their case no good to talk about inequalities in health, because then we get into the real politics and the real reasons why there are winners and losers. From their point of view, it is inconvenient to address such issues.
The Tories also shelved the Black report. One of the most crucial reports on public health this century was allowed to gather dust, although it contained so many significant proposals that could have been acted upon in the early 1980s. Disgracefully, those were ignored.
The Tory party made no attempt to curb smoking, either, because of its relations with the tobacco industry. The tobacco companies provided its poster sites free in 1992, and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), a former Secretary of State for Health, is openly connected with the tobacco industry.
The Tories' business connections are important. I know where they are coming from, and I know why they cannot address the problem of smoking—but thousands of people have died needlessly as a result of the 18 years in which they did nothing about people misusing tobacco in a way that affected their health, their children's health and the health of generations to come.
My area was drastically affected by the Tories' economic policies, too. Some of my hon. Friends from nearby areas are here today, and they, too, saw thousands of people kicked out of the coal industry and the industries connected with it. Twenty thousand people were sent down the road in my area, and that was a public health issue, too—one that was totally ignored by the Conservative Government.
In the short time that I have left, I shall contrast that record with what I believe are some of the key achievements of the Labour Government in the past two and a quarter years. There are three key elements that I believe are especially important. First, the abolition of the internal market is perhaps the most important step forward concerning the NHS that the Government have made. It represents a fundamental redirection of the service from competition back to co-operation, and to people working together to deliver a service that provides the best possible care for patients. The move from fundholding practices to primary care groups has put primary care back in the front line, where Nye Bevan envisaged it in the 1940s.
I welcome the idea of walk-in centres, especially as one of the first 19 of them is in Wakefield. I realise that there are debates about whether those centres represent an appropriate way forward, but there will be monitoring of their success or otherwise. The centre in Wakefield is targeted towards certain groups, such as middle-aged men, who tend not to go to see their doctors, and I welcome the accessibility that that will offer such people.
I also especially welcome the reacquaintance of the national health service with social services. The two disciplines are shaking hands again in a way that did not happen under the Tories. The winter pressures initiative was a great success, on which I hope that the Government will build. My hon. Friend the Minister of State knows


that I favour going a good deal further, but I welcome the steps taken so far, and especially the public health White Paper that tackles health inequalities.
I also welcome the commitment of various Departments to the assessment of the health implications of Government policies. That makes a crucial connection between health and wider economic and industrial policies. The previous Government gave no thought to that at all.
The motion before the House today shows that the Conservatives have given up on health as an issue. Neither in the motion nor in the opening speech have they offered any concrete proposals. The warning in the Maples memorandum to keep out of health appears to hold sway in the Conservative party.

Dr. Howard Stoate: I take issue with my hon. Friend about the Opposition's tactics. I disagree with his contention that they have no tactics; their aim is to frighten people. Talking down the health service by saying how much worse it is becoming brings down the morale of doctors and nurses, and diverts attention from the good work that those people do. The result is lower morale and frightened people believing that the service is worse than it really is. As a doctor in the health service, I do not recognise the description of it given by Conservative Members.

Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. People who are frightened of the health service will go to the private sector, which is what the Tories want.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hinchliffe: No, I have already spoken for longer than I intended.
Perhaps Conservative Members might care to look at the report about private medical care by the Select Committee on Health, which will be published tomorrow. They want to push people into the private sector, but I hope that they will draw some conclusions from the report's investigations.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Hinchliffe: No, I said that I intended to conclude.
The Tories have given up on health. I never thought that I would miss their previous spokesman, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, but I do. What she lacked in knowledge of the health service she made up for in bluster when she banged around at the Dispatch Box. I miss her already, and this is only the first debate since her departure. She was good entertainment, and livened up debates such as this, even if there was not a lot of content in what she said.
I know that many issues remain to be resolved, and that many challenges remain for the Government to deal with. However, I believe that the Government have started to establish some firm foundations and are addressing the fundamental problems. Whatever happens in next week's

reshuffle, I think that the team leading the Department has made a pretty good start in the past two years. I am sure that we can build on that in the years to come.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has followed the pattern of many Labour Members by devoting most of his contribution to a speech that he could have made at the last general election. In the two years since then, I have debated most of the matters that he raised, so I shall not go over them all again.
The hon. Gentleman went back as far as the early 1980s, when he referred to the difference of opinion about the Black committee report. The Labour party turned to the left at that time, and it has accused Conservative Members of wishing to privatise the national health service ever since. That accusation often dominated the debate, and it is still being used today, by the hon. Gentleman and by the Secretary of State. However, the record over more than a decade of the previous Conservative Government shows that we had no such intention.
We have no such intention now, and my own commitment to the national health service is beyond doubt. The debate should be about making the health service better, rather than about exchanging empty slogans.

Mr. Hinchliffe: If what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says is true, what was the purpose of giving financial incentives to elderly people to insure themselves for private medical care? Was it not the Tory party's intention to move towards private medical care?

Mr. Clarke: Many people in private insurance found that, when they reached an age at which they were likely to make a demand on that insurance, there was a risk that the premiums would rise. The aim of the incentive was to ensure that those who chose private insurance when they were of working age would not have to give it up when they were most likely to make a claim. That perfectly defensible policy reduced the demands on the national health service. We otherwise concentrated on improving the national health service—paid for out of general taxation and free at the point of treatment—and I remain committed to improving that service.
The Secretary of State also devoted much of his time to his old election speech. I shall not go over all that he said, but I will attack his lack of policies. I wish the Secretary of State no personal ill will as he and I get on well and he has always been amiable and straightforward in our countless debates on policy on many subjects. I understand his much-publicised desire not to drink from the poisoned chalice by becoming Labour's candidate for mayor of London. But if he is moved, I shall not mind; as an Opposition Back Bencher, I am indifferent to who the Secretary of State is. What matters is that he or she has a coherent policy for a vital service. I have criticised the Secretary of State for having no such overall strategy, and he has merely reinforced that criticism today.
The Secretary of State has made a welcome statement on meningitis vaccines, but I have previously criticised the Government, and will do so again, for putting presentation where strategy should be. A stream of press


releases and initiatives flows towards us. Often, the initiatives have already been reannounced, but they have to be reannounced yet again. Many are entirely beside the point when placed against the day-to-day problems confronting those responsible for delivering health care on the ground.
In the most striking recent example, the Secretary of State, as usual when he is under pressure for failing to deliver what he promised at the general election, grabbed for the headlines. He published targets for health standards well into the next century. I do not want to be accused of being against his worthy objectives, which included careful calculations to show that many lives would be saved if the targets were ever delivered. However, he produced not a scintilla of evidence of anything new being done to deliver them. He offered us, instead of policy today, desirable ambitions that he said would be delivered in a decade or more, long after the Government have gone. All that was intended to divert attention from pressing problems now all over the country.
Today's statement was welcome, but the Government's advisers ought to raise the Secretary of State's standards. On a bad news day, his diversion of attention was blatant. He began with a worthwhile statement on meningitis protection, but was unable to answer our complaints and allegations about the state of the NHS. In addition to his usual election address on the deficiencies of the Conservative party's performance on the health service, he reminded me of the Wilsonian speech-making process of using a stream of statistics to hold together the best bits of the press releases, while coming to no particular conclusion on the future.
I congratulate the Conservative Front Bench team on raising this debate, because the Government are failing to deliver on the expectations that they raised by setting specific targets—some of them unwise—at the last election. Service to our constituents is deteriorating, and the volume of complaints about the inability of the NHS to meet its obligations is growing.

Dr. Stoate: I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on one point. We need debates of substance on matters of policy. Why, then, when this should be an adult, grown-up debate about the running of the health service, is there no shred of policy in the Conservative motion? I should welcome a debate on policy, but there is none before us. The Conservatives offer only a stream of criticisms and no suggestions on how to improve the health service.

Mr. Clarke: I promise the hon. Gentleman that, by the conclusion of my speech, I shall be giving welcome advice to the Secretary of State and making suggestions on how he can move from here to make worthwhile progress towards the ambitions that he holds out for us as targets for the next century. He will not attain them if he continues to cause the damage to the service that he has in two years so far.
I have spoken in health debates before because I am so concerned about the health service. It is one of the weakest areas of performance by the Government. I could choose many others, but with the health service, they are at the greatest risk of getting into more and more political trouble as reality confronts their presentation of what they are doing.
I shall begin by briefly putting points that I have made before about why the Government are getting it so wrong and why we are worried about a crisis in the health service that appears to be looming even in the summer, when demands are not the greatest. I most fear a winter crisis after our experience of last winter. There are some clear reasons why the Government have got themselves into this position.
First, the Government have got the money for the NHS wrong. I am the first to admit that the problem of the health service is not only money. I often said that to Opposition spokesmen when I was in government myself. However, the Labour Government made a serious mistake in the first two years by imposing on the NHS two of the stiffest years that it has ever had. They used to justify that with the misleading claim that they were imposing Conservative spending plans. They know perfectly well that that is not sustainable. We never stuck to the second and third-year figures in our Red Books for the health service. We always had annual spending rounds, and we revised the spending targets in the light of the experience of the previous year. Everyone who works in the health service knows that it is a long time since it has had two such tough years.
As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) rightly said, the amount of debt being incurred throughout the service is enormous. All the great claims for how well the service is going sit ill alongside the serious financial crisis that rising demand and rising expectations have forced on health authorities, which have had two very severe years. As, to be fair, the Liberals warned us that they would, the Government hope that, in the run-up to the next election, they will be able to put more money into the health service to raise the feelgood factor in the next three years.
The Government have found a misleading and original way of presenting wholly unexceptional figures for those next three years. They are going back to the normal increases in spending roughly attained for most of the past 10 or 15 years. Those increases will not be good enough. The Government have locked themselves in for three years. They have said that they will not reopen the figures or review them in the light of each year's experience. I shall be surprised if they manage to stick to that.
The only good claim that the Government can make on resources is that they have a massive hospital-building programme. I cannot forbear to point out that that is entirely the result of the flow-through from the private finance initiative, which we initiated. The Labour Government inherited a great flow of schemes. The Labour party slowed up progress when we were in office, because its then spokesman kept opposing the PFI and saying that a Labour Government would scrap it, which made it more difficult to conclude the deals. I wish the hospital-building programme well. It is the one piece of good news on resources that the health service has.
To move on to policy, the Government are not distributing money properly throughout the service across the country. Staff, patients and the public read about the figures, but they know perfectly well that they have not got the money in local budgets. A great deal is being held back centrally for presentational purposes. The modernisation fund will be used to fund today's announcement. It is just one little pot of money kept safely under the Secretary of State's lock and key in London to feed the flow of popular announcements over


the next three years. The one that we had today was, I suspect, fairly modest in cost and was a perfectly sensible choice of priorities. However, in some initiatives, the Government are obviously pursuing the presentational impact of going for some spectacular area for which the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State can announce that money is now available.
Meanwhile, at local level, people do not have at their disposal to tackle priorities at their discretion the money that they are constantly described as having. Their priorities are being distorted, for example, by the meaningless waiting list targets, which are not being achieved and should never have been set in the first place. Cutting waiting lists is not the best objective to set the health service. In addition, ever-increasing bureaucracy and strangling of local initiative will inhibit the ability of people to deliver the service. That is my indictment of where we are headed and of why things are going wrong. We have been short of money; now we are not distributing it properly and we are not allowing people to use it properly on local priorities. That is evident everywhere and the problem will get worse.
Both sides of the House are committed to the NHS, but when we come to defend it, we discover that it is a hard taskmaster; it requires especially high competence, a rigorous choice of priorities and absolute clarity about what is at the disposal of the people who have to make decisions at the sharp end. Demand always rises inexorably, and has itself to be addressed by those responsible for the health service. The choice of priorities should be clinical and never political; it should certainly never be purely presentational.
The Secretary of State is taking some curious steps. Comments have already been made about his appointments and the right hon. Gentleman gave a curious and slightly tangential explanation. I realise that he is no longer in the Chamber, but I must make it clear that I have no personal complaint to make against him on appointments. I recommended one appointment, which the Secretary of State made—despite the fact that I made it clear that the person was a supporter not of the Labour party, but of the Conservative party.
Apart from the political complexion of the appointments, the Secretary of State does not satisfy me that he appoints on merit, or for the special qualities required for the huge, demanding and stressful task of managing a health authority or an NHS trust. He misunderstands the nature of the appointments that he makes. When I was Secretary of State for Health, I did not make political appointments. I had rows with some of my Back-Bench Members because I refused to make the political appointments that they wanted. I appointed, or re-appointed, at least two ex-Labour Members of Parliament. I might even have appointed people who were Members of Parliament at the time, if they had had the time to combine the job—it is a pretty full-time one—with being a Member of Parliament.
However, I did appoint a much higher proportion of business men; that got me accused of political bias. I appointed professional people and people with managerial experience of running a large organisation that posed difficult challenges outside. It was said that many of those people were Tories. Indeed, in the good days for our party, it was probably true that a large number of business

men were Tories, but that was not the reason for their appointment. It is no good removing people from NHS posts, as the Secretary of State does, because they are business men and because the quota of business men is too large.
Of course, people with professional, managerial and other skills can be found in local government, but it is a mistake to believe that one should appoint to those key management tasks a whole lot of elected, local representatives of one's party—elected for their democratic and political skills. The appointments are much more akin to non-executive appointments to large, complex organisations; people are needed who have the substance to sit alongside the executives, and who can share the responsibility for multi-million budgets and for agonising ethical and priority choices. They have to hold the executives to account and assist them in discharging their duties. Those huge lists of local authority or other Labour party activists and worthies completely miss the point.

Mr. Simon Hughes: It may be easier for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to answer my question now that he is in opposition than it would have been when he was in office. Does he agree that it is now sensible that we should move away from such appointments being entirely the responsibility of the Secretary of State of the day? They should be dealt with by a cross-party or all-party process and should be much less political appointments—as Neill has recommended for other public offices.

Mr. Clarke: I am a straightforward chap and I think that it is a pity that Secretaries of State cannot handle those matters. I fear that appointment-making will be taken over by quangos of the great and the good. I am not sure whether all the rules that have been introduced on public appointments have improved the quality of those appointments—all that results is a great paper chase and some curious appraisal methods. With great respect to the officials, more people tend to be appointed whom the officials know and less people whom the Ministers know. That is not an automatic advance. If it is any consolation to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, when I was at the Home Office, I once made a senior appointment of a Social Democrat who had lost his seat. It should be possible to have clear guidance and the Secretary of State should be held to account. We try to hold him to account, but he offers us a rather unconvincing explanation of the ridiculous total of Labour party activists that he has appointed all over the place.
Even more serious are the bureaucracy, the constraints and the changes that are being imposed on the ground, largely to satisfy the Government's claims that they are reversing the Conservative reforms. I believe that those changes will inhibit the delivery of the service, and the aspect about which I feel most strongly is fundholding. I totally reject the slogan used by the hon. Member for Wakefield that the NHS was made a two-tier service. The whole idea of fundholding was to give incentives to GPs, who act as gatekeepers to the service, to raise the quality of service that they provide to their patients. We discovered that some could do that better than others, but it is no good turning around and saying that the whole system is unfair because some people cannot manage it and make a mess of it, so everything has to return to the level it was before.
I come now to what I trust will be the most eloquent part of my speech, in which I quote a letter I received from a doctor. The letter was entirely unsolicited, although I have expressed strong views on fundholding. I shall not name the doctor, who is a GP in my constituency; I have no idea what his political allegiance is. By chance, he summed up in his letter my fears about fundholding. He writes:
It is clear that the end of fundholding means that our patients must return to the unacceptably, and in my view, dangerously long waiting times for both inpatient and outpatient appointments. So much for the 'levelling up' process proposed by the government.
In addition to the above concerns, it is not at all clear that the Practice based services such as Physiotherapy, counselling and venepuncturist will be available in the future. Despite strenuous efforts on our part, Nottingham Health can not or will not give us any idea what the future holds for these services. I suspect that through a process of vacillation and procrastination they will wither on the vine …
The innovation and local flexibility that fundholding brought to General Practice is being stifled by the plethora of administrative structures, PCGs, TCPs, Trusts etc. The only result of all this reorganisation has been to introduce yet more bureaucratic layers, costing money which could be available for patient care.
You might be interested to discover that the approximate cost of each PCG"—
primary care group—
of which there are six in Nottingham, is £250,000—not a penny of which has been spent on patient care—and the complaint was that fundholding was expensive!
I could go on and give other details of the threats to his practice that that doctor fears. Almost every doctor in my constituency was in a fundholding practice by the time the Conservatives left office. Many of them fought the system fiercely when it was first proposed, but discovered the benefits of it and now regret its loss.
One of the great strengths of the NHS is the primary care service, provided by the family doctor who knows at first hand the needs of his patients. The duty of the family doctor is to act as a gatekeeper to access to NHS services, such as hospital care and community care services in his locality, and to get his patients the best possible access for the public money available for their care. That is being threatened by the crisis in local services. I could give a plethora of examples from the rising number of submissions made to me—that the number is rising may be chance, but I think not—of people whom the service fails when they find they want it.
The hospital service is also breaking down. The waiting list initiative is being used shamelessly to distort the length of waiting lists. People are removed from waiting lists for reasons that are administrative and have nothing to do with their clinical need. I have examples of people who need a hip replacement being told that they will have to wait 16 months before they can have a first interview with a consultant, because they only go on to the waiting list figures after the first interview and their waiting time thereafter is thus shortened. I have also found that our health authority has stopped allowing GPs to refer out of area because waiting times are shorter elsewhere, which is one of the flexibilities that the previous system

permitted. All that tells of a steady deterioration in what can be done on the ground, and the prospect of a stream of public announcements and initiatives is no substitute.

Dr. Stoate: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, because I shall answer the point the hon. Gentleman made about what should now be done.
Fortunately, the Government have not reversed the previous NHS reforms. They have kept the purchaser-provider divide. The NHS now has management information that was not at the disposal of anyone before the reforms were made. I used to compare the old unreformed national health service with the Indian state railways: no one was apparently in charge of anything and the system worked only because everyone knew that they had to do roughly what they had done the year before, while hoping that they did not run out of money before the year's end. We now have an altogether better system which is capable of being controlled.
We must release from the centre the great bulk of unallocated money and stop introducing central initiatives. The walk-in health centres sound like a good idea—although they will probably stimulate extra demand, which is a great misfortune. However, they are not a first priority when we consider the strains on the service and they run the risk of diverting resources from other areas. Local priorities will differ somewhat from place to place; that is why we have a postal list variation. Sometimes variations are inevitable and sometimes they should be addressed—especially when big items, such as beta interferon treatment for multiple sclerosis, are involved. People should be allowed to say that, because waiting times are quite good in their region, they want to tackle other areas of the health service.
Money should be distributed and responsibility should be returned to the authorities, the trusts, the doctors in the GP practices, the senior clinicians in the hospitals and trusts and the community services. Health policy must be redrawn on the basis that responsibility for the day-to-day handling of health service demands should be delegated as far as possible to those on the front line in the local hospitals and GP practices. The Secretary of State's job is to hold local service providers accountable centrally for their performance and to ensure that he has in place people who are competent to use the millions of pounds at their disposal for the best purposes.
There is no thread of policy of that kind running through the Government's activities. The Secretary of State delivered a worthwhile statement on meningitis today and, in a fortnight's time, there will be another statement. By autumn, the press will happily report on its front pages stories that we have heard before. I am sure that I have heard the nurse consultant salaries announcement several times—with slight alterations on each occasion. Statements are no substitute for guiding the health service.
It is foolish to believe that increased spending will solve all the problems. The Government must conduct an annual spending review. It is no good accusing the Opposition of attacking health spending. The Government have been far too generous across the field in Whitehall, but I have never heard anyone attack the Government's health spending. My guess is that, despite what they say,


the Government will have to allocate more money to health next year. They should face up to their responsibilities, conduct a proper spending review and save money elsewhere in government in order to afford increased health expenditure.
At present, we have drift and no policy. We are halfway through this Parliament and the problems are piling up—and they threaten to get worse, winter by winter. I have listened to this debate and I still have no sense of the Government's direction. The Labour party is at home and content fighting the last election, but it is totally out of its depth when it comes to taking decisions about the most demanding public service of all.

Mr. Eric Illsley: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement about meningitis. I, too, would have liked a separate statement about that issue as I wanted to question my right hon. Friend about the age ranges for which the vaccine will be available. When my hon. Friend the Minister of State winds up the debate, perhaps he will confirm whether the vaccine will be made available to students in halls of residence throughout the country where meningitis has been a problem.
I agreed wholeheartedly with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)— except his remarks about the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). I agreed with my hon. Friend's views about policy, so I shall confine my remarks mainly to constituency points.
Before I do so, however, I want to take issue with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who refused to accept that the introduction of fundholding resulted in a two-tier system. A few years ago, under the previous Government, the Central Sheffield University Hospitals NHS trust told all GPs in the South Yorkshire area, "We shall not accept any patients who are not from fundholding practices." When I took that up with the trust, it said that the reason for its decision was that fundholding practices' patients came with the money up front, whereas health authority patients did not, and the trust's perilous state at the time—it was, among other things, 9 per cent. over budget—meant that it could not afford to take anyone who did not come with the money in their hand, as it were.
Before I move on to my constituency points, I want also to deal with rationing, which is mentioned in the Opposition motion. As other hon. Members have pointed out, that motion, which claims that the system is deteriorating, is remarkably poor. Rationing existed under the previous Government to a large degree, but previous Secretaries of State refused to admit that.

Mr. Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that rationing exists under the present Government?

Mr. Illsley: I believe that rationing has existed in the national health service since it was formed. It is obvious that if there is an increasing demand for services and an increasing number of people want access to the system, the strains on the system will lead to some form of rationing. I disagree with the Opposition's accusation that

we refuse to accept that rationing is happening. In government, they refused to accept that there was rationing and simply turned their back on the question.
Consultants in my area had to hope that GPs would prescribe to their patients the drugs that they wanted to prescribe because hospital trusts would not allow consultants to prescribe those drugs from the hospital's budget. I can quote chapter and verse on that matter because for many years my daughter was prescribed an expensive drug simply because we have a good, sympathetic general practitioner.
Some of the comments of Conservative Members about bureaucracy beggar belief. The previous Government introduced bureaucracy into the national health service by increasing management to the point where a previous Secretary of State had to remove 3 per cent. of the management staff who had been introduced because they cost too much.
There have been improvements in the national health service under this Government. For a start, there is the extra funding that is mentioned in the Prime Minister's amendment. That is a clear example of Labour's commitment to the NHS.
On funding, Barnsley health authority in my area has traditionally been the lowest-funded health authority in the country. We have been at the bottom of the list for a long time. Similarly, we were at the bottom of the list for the revenue support grant. When we queried our status with the previous Government, we received the scientific response, "Someone has to be at the bottom of the list, so why can't it be you?" There was no explanation of why the funding formula always discriminated against us when we had, and still have, some of the worst health indicators in the country.
I am pleased to say that under this Government my health authority received a funding increase of 7.85 per cent. this year, which is one of the highest increases for any health authority. That is very welcome. However, we still have considerable problems, one or two of which I shall outline, and we are still one of the lowest-funded health authorities.
Some colleagues and I recently attended a meeting with the Trent area health authorities and were shown a presentation in which almost every slide or indicator from the Trent region placed my health authority in the worst position and revealed problems with, among other things, coronary care and so on.

Mr. Jeff Ennis: Mortality rates.

Mr. Illsley: I shall deal with those in a moment.
Every indicator that is highlighted by health authorities in the Trent region points to our authority being the worst, yet our funding does not allow us to tackle the problems.
Traditionally, my area has high levels of disability. It is a former coal mining area—sadly, the previous Government decided to close the mines—and we have a legacy of problems from such heavy industry. There is a high incidence of disability, coronary disease, stroke and cancer, most of which relate to poor life style, diet, and so forth as a result of living in a poor and economically disadvantaged area. This Government have recognised that: they have introduced health action zones and I am


pleased to say that South Yorkshire is one such zone. The incidence of heart disease and stroke in particular will be dealt with, I hope, and we will see an improvement.
The standard mortality ratio in the Barnsley health authority area is the worst in the country. Apart from the incidence of heart disease, stroke and so on, I am not sure why, but it is a cause for concern. When the figure is broken down by ward, the difference between the highest and lowest is very small. In other words, no area covered by Barnsley health authority is good or bad; the figure is simply bad throughout. That needs to be tackled. I hope that the regional health authority and my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the matter for the future because in an area that has a history of heavy industry and which wants to regenerate and improve itself economically, such figures are not conducive to people settling.
Another recent indicator that caused concern is that for the prescription of anti-depressants, where again—and I am not sure why—our area is the worst in the country. I do not know whether it is simply a question of GPs prescribing such drugs to get people out of their surgeries, but it should be addressed. I was encouraged recently to hear that the new GP-led primary care group has appointed a GP from within the group to tackle the issue among GPs themselves. That GP can go to the worst offenders and find out why they are prescribing so many anti-depressants and whether their practices—either previous fundholding or single-handed GP practices—are up to scratch. The history of prescribing in my area may not be as good as it should be. Now that we have a PCG, we are able to address that.
For some reason, the highest number of deaths—albeit a low number—from breast cancer occurs in my area. Neither the health authority nor Trent executive region can identify the reason why—nobody knows. Some time ago, I went to the opening of the breast cancer unit in Barnsley district general hospital. It is a superb facility—nicely decorated and situated, and established to make patients feel comfortable and to encourage them to come forward with breast cancer problems and related issues. The unit is excellent, but no one can explain why we have the highest rate of deaths from breast cancer. Nobody has been able to identify whether it is because people are not coming forward early enough or at all.
There is a shortage of GPs in our area. Several are due to retire in the not-too-distant future, but we are not attracting people to replace them, so we may soon have a crisis in such provision. Also, for some reason, we have a large number of single-handed general practices. In fact, the primary care group GP who represents them is responsible for 148,000 patients in the Barnsley area, which appears to be a very high number. Perhaps that too ought to be addressed.
In Barnsley, waiting lists for two types of treatment are far too long. People must wait three years to see a consultant orthodontist. All concerned have acknowledged that, but no one appears to be doing anything about it. I would welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister on whether the matter can be addressed.
Second only to one or two areas in the north-east and Northern Ireland, Barnsley has the highest rate of coronary heart disease in the country, yet patients must wait up to nine months for an angiogram. In one case,

which was referred to me recently and is a cause for concern, a man aged 38 was required to wait nine months. He decided to obtain the angiogram privately, at quite some cost, only to find that he needed quadruple heart bypass surgery. He is fearful that, had he not taken the option of private treatment, he might not still be alive.
I welcome the private finance initiative to build new hospitals. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe referred to the PFI hospital programme, which he apparently started but never got off the ground—he never managed to get the buildings up and running. The PFI in Barnsley is very small: about £1 million to refurbish hospital kitchens. However, the privatisation of all kitchen area staff and of housekeeping on the wards appears to be coming in on the back of it, to the point where the only health service staff on the wards of Barnsley district general hospital will be nurses, and everyone else—from the bed to the door—will be contracted in from private companies. That is a great cause for concern.
I welcome the Government's amendment and totally oppose the Opposition motion. I welcome all the initiatives that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is taking and hope that some of the points that I have raised about my constituency will be taken on board.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I must inform the House that many hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye. Unless speeches are considerably shorter, several of them will be disappointed.

Mrs. Marion Roe: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his announcement concerning meningitis, which is very good news. I congratulate all those associated with the initiative.
It is with a sense of enormous sadness that I have watched the decline in the standards of health care provision in Britain since the Labour Government and the Secretary of State took control in 1997. I believe in a national health service and in the magnificent work of our doctors, nurses and other health professionals in the face of huge difficulties that have been generated by this Labour Government's policies.
My principal interest is in primary care. I have watched with pride over 14 years the innovative developments in practices in my constituency which have improved the quality and efficiency of their services.
I fully endorse the points that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made about fundholding. I watched with pleasure as clinics were established by fundholders in local surgeries to provide convenient local and cost-effective care for the local population. They developed day-surgery clinics, cutting waiting times for surgical procedures. They employed medical professionals such as counsellors to reduce the demands on the mental health services. Since 1997, I have seen those clinics systematically destroyed as a result of the Government's reforms.
The Government seem to spurn innovation and entrepreneurialism. They seem to be working to the lowest common denominator in medicine. They fail to


realise that all developments in medicine have always depended on the introduction of ideas in individual pioneering units, rolled out to all for the greater good. The current primary care reforms, corralling and coercing doctors into arbitrary groups and forcing them to work to confusing agendas in disparate environments, deride and destroy the progress that Conservative Governments for so long fostered and nurtured. Those groups, often working to impossibly tight budgets, are being forced to close those clinics and services as a niggardly cost-cutting exercise. The result is less good, less convenient services.
The doctors are being forced to act as Government hit-men, rationing services while the Secretary of State denies that rationing even exists. Indeed, he is setting up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to intervene in the clinical care provided by doctors by imposing dubious guidelines and applying professional and financial pressures to force the withholding of some types of care. The Secretary of State has certainly caused chaos with Viagra, leaving practitioners unsure how to manage the often serious symptoms for which it is available.
The service will deteriorate further as other new drugs, possibly with life-saving actions, are allocated to patients arbitrarily by a Minister who seems more interested in named diseases and financial constraints than in the distress and morbidity resulting from the illnesses from which patients suffer.
I watch with sorrow as the primary care groups take clinicians out of their surgeries to try to manage the unmanageable. Half a million consultations a month are stolen from the system by their absence to attend committees. Half a million patients a month are deprived of their own doctor and are forced either to wait or to obtain medical advice from other practitioners in whom they may not have as much confidence.
I watch with sorrow as primary care is fragmented by this gung-ho Government, who are introducing NHS Direct and walk-in centres without proper evaluation, putting dogmatism before realism. Why can the royal colleges, the British Medical Association and the profession as a whole all see what the Government fail to see—that these new and gimmicky services will fuel demand, diluting care and consuming enormous financial resources? Worse, to use the words of Dr. John Chisholm, the BMA's general practice committee chairman,
the Government could casually destroy or weaken our model of general practice.

Dr. Brand: We may be getting slightly carried away by dogma. Does the hon. Lady accept that single-practice fundholding was extremely costly on doctors' time, as they had to negotiate with every clinical department of every hospital with which they negotiated? Does she agree that the setting up of consortiums of fundholders was a great improvement? There is no reason why primary care groups cannot carry forward that effectiveness. It is up to the ex-fundholders to get stuck in to the new system and make it work instead of slagging it off.

Mrs. Roe: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the doctors to whom I have spoken feel that the freedom and flexibility that they had as fundholders gave a much better

opportunity for appropriate patient care and certainly provided the adequate service that they felt was important within the national health service.
I am saddened to see the British Medical Association so concerned by the Labour Government's changes. Last week in Belfast, Dr. Ian Bogle, BMA council chairman, made an unprecedented attack on the Prime Minister. He pointed out that morale in the health service had never been so low. He offered mock congratulations to the Prime Minister on managing to alienate the whole medical profession. He attacked the Prime Minister's personal style of "spin and grin".
In my constituency, I have never had so many complaints. It is surrounded by deterioration in local hospital services. My constituents have access to three hospitals—the Chase Farm hospital in Enfield to the south, the Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn Garden City to the west and the Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow to the east. All are faced with downgrading, closures and service reductions born out of financial stringencies and staff shortages. Up to 50 beds will go at the Princess Alexandra; the Queen Elizabeth II faces a merger with the Lister hospital at Stevenage with the loss of some of its key services; and the Chase Farm hospital has already been merged with Barnet general and, I believe, now faces a declining future.
Many of my constituents are infuriated by a Government who claim to be bountiful while cutting and cutting service after service. In the past 24 hours, I have received several tragic letters from constituents. One was about a frail, elderly and sick lady suffering an appallingly long wait in hospital with nursing and medical shortages, defective equipment and not even any refreshments.
I am hugely concerned about the future security of my local breast disease service, threatened with relocation in an inappropriate merger with another hospital.
Another constituent, a frail, elderly gentleman, experienced a five-and-a-half hour wait for an ambulance to take him home, resulting in his not arriving until late at night, long after his carer had left. If it had not been for the good will of the carer, who returned to help him to bed, he might have had to face a night in his wheelchair.
The Government have ridden roughshod over the health professions, imposing change of dubious benefit and doubtful efficacy. The real success, the jewel in the crown, are the health professionals, who have risen to meet this folly with dedication and vigour, challenging the steady deterioration in service with ever more commitment in time and energy.
I do not believe that this can go on. The Government must realise that they cannot expect dedicated health professionals to bail out unworkable and nonsensical policies. They must remove the coercion to join primary care groups. If they are so good, why are they compulsory? They should reconsider the roll-out of NHS Direct and walk-in centres until proper evaluations have been carried out and the results have been submitted to public scrutiny, and they must realise that GPs cannot subsidise in time and money the management of our vital service. Only then will our NHS start to recover from the ill-conceived and chaotic policies of this Labour Government.

Dr. Howard Stoate: No one seems to have a good word to say for the national health service these days, so it behoves me, as one of the very few medically qualified Members of the House who still does a certain amount of practice, to answer some of the points that have been raised.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman the Minister?

Dr. Stoate: In answer to the right hon. Lady's question from a sedentary position, I do have the right to answer the debate, even though I am not winding up for the Government. I still feel that I have arguments to make in answer to points that Labour Members and Opposition Members have raised in the debate so far.

Dr. Brand: rose—

Dr. Stoate: I shall give way in a minute.
In the interests of grown-up debate I decided to look back over the past 20 years, at my experience as a doctor, to see what I could glean from my experience in the health service. During the past 20 years, the health service has changed dramatically. There have been vast improvements all round. Social conditions for most people in this country have to a certain extent improved. Nowadays most people have telephones and many have cars. Most people can now get to the premises where their general practitioners and the primary care professionals work.
The role of the general practitioner has also changed dramatically over the past 20 years. Most people can come to much better equipped surgeries, where a far wider range of facilities is available. More can be done for them in primary care, without their having to be passed on to the secondary sector.

Dr. Brand: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he not surprised that the Government amendment
congratulates the staff on providing … the fairest and most efficient healthcare system in the world",
and that we no longer speak of the best health care system in the world? Can he explain how we can go back to being comparable with the best—at present we are second or even third-rate in our outcomes—without putting in extra resources?

Dr. Stoate: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution, although I do not agree with him. I believe that ours is still one of the best health services in the world. We have one of the most dedicated services available. We have notes that go from cradle to grave. We have a commitment to patients that is unsurpassed in most countries, which still envy us. For example, many people still come to visit the Royal College of General Practitioners, of which I am a fellow, to find out how British general practice can be rolled out into other parts of the world. I still take part to some extent in the college activities, and professors from foreign countries come over frequently to find out how British general practice can be used in their own countries for the benefit of their own people.
I simply do not recognise the idea that British general practice and the British national health service have slipped in their position in the world. I still believe that it is an excellent service, with much to offer people in Britain.
General practice has improved markedly over the past few years. That has not just happened recently. It has been going on over a long period. I shall surprise Opposition Members by saying that I do not believe that the service has become wonderful over the past two years having been dreadful before. I take a rather more grown-up approach and say that improvements have happened gradually, over a long period—and yes, some of those improvements have been due to the Conservatives. To a certain extent, I pay tribute to what the previous Government did.
Much of the debate this afternoon has centred on fundholding. Yes, there are aspects of fundholding that did a great deal of good. There was considerable innovation, and many entrepreneurial ideas came from certain general practitioners who were able to run with the ideas and introduce genuine change and improvements for patients in their surgeries. However, there was a problem, which the Opposition have never grasped and to which they have never owned up.
Every improvement that some GPs were able to glean for their patients was at the expense of other GPs who were unable to do so. The fact remained that if money was being top-sliced to be given to fundholders, less was left for the commissioning groups of other GPs who did not have those advantages. There was indeed a two-tier service. For every innovation from which some GPs benefited, others lost out. As someone who has been a GP for a long time—a non-fundholding GP—I felt that keenly in some aspects of patient care. I felt that on many occasions my patients were missing out, because of the activities of fundholders.
Many aspects of fundholding worked, but the problem was that it was unfair. Opposition Members like to speak about free choice and the right of people, including doctors, to make decisions for themselves. I agree with that, but there is a fundamental difference between my view of the world and theirs. In their view, choice and freedom must be right at any cost. In my view, choice and freedom are right only in so far as they do not impinge on the choice and freedom of others. Choice is good, but not at the expense of others. Fundholding undoubtedly reduced the choice of others.
Opposition Members look quizzical, so I shall give a simple example relating to economies of scale. If a fundholder top-sliced the budget for the family practitioners service, as it was then, that left far less money for the non-fundholding GPs. That meant that they were far less able to negotiate bulk contracts with their local providers. They got a worse service and the money ran out sooner. The money was not available for GPs in the non-fundholding practices to make the best of things for their practices.
Although some good things came out of fundholding, I believe that overall it created inequality, unfairness and a two-tier service.

Dr. Fox: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If, as he says, fundholding created a two-tier system and there were advantages to fundholding, would it not


have been logical to move everyone up to the top tier, not to drag everyone downwards by restricting freedom, as primary care groups have done?

Dr. Stoate: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but I cannot agree with it. If, as I believe and as many surveys have shown, fundholders were getting a greater proportion of the resources, those advantages would be lost if all GPs became fundholders, because they could not all have more than their share of resources. The only way that fundholding could turn out to be a great success was by reducing the resources available to non-fundholders.
Surely the way forward in that case is to amalgamate fundholding with non-fundholding to produce the best of all worlds. I shall give an example to Opposition Members, who may not believe me. In my constituency, Dartford, more than 100 GPs, fundholders and non-fundholders working together, formed a primary care pilot. About 70 of them were fundholders and 30 were non-fundholders. They voluntarily gave up that status to work together as 100 GPs. They reduced bureaucracy and achieved much better economies of scale and improvements in services.
Those GPs acted as a model for primary care groups. Now that they have become a primary care group, they are a year ahead of most other GPs and are providing genuine and sustained improvements in service for their patients. They have taken the best of fundholding and rolled those benefits out for all patients and all GPs in the community. They formed a primary care group, precisely as the Government intend, to reduce the inequality that was apparent under the previous system.
We have taken the best and ensured that it is available to all. Of course I accept some of the criticisms from some of my GP colleagues who say that things have happened very fast, that they are not sure what is happening and that there are gaps in service. Some PCGs have obviously been faster and more organised than others, and some are falling behind. However, that is more a matter of things settling down over time and the new service bedding in, rather than a fundamental problem with the service.
I genuinely believe that in a year's time, primary care groups will prove to be the best thing that we could have done under the circumstances. They will provide the maximum improvements for all patients in the community, not just for the favoured few. That is surely what is needed to improve health care for people in Britain.
It is right for this debate to take place and for the House to examine how the health service is working, but it is not right to table motions that run the health service down and frighten people into believing that the health service is getting worse, when it clearly is not. We should be talking up the best of the health service, improving aspects in which improvement is still needed, and most of all building on the successes of the past and ensuring that they benefit everyone.
I pay tribute to the enormous number of doctors, nurses and other health professionals who work extremely hard, who show such dedication, and who work long hours, sometimes at thankless tasks. We should pay tribute to

those people, instead of making them look as though they are running a second-rate service of which no one wants to be part. That is not the case.
I have sat through the debate this afternoon and listened to the comments, and I do not recognise the health service that many hon. Members profess to know all about. I still work in the health service to a certain extent and I shall give Opposition Members three examples of patients whom I have seen in the past few weeks.
We talk about priorities and about whether people get the service that they want, when they need it. I saw a lady with breast cancer. It was in quite an advanced state. I picked up the phone and spoke to a surgeon. He said, "I am still here. How quickly can she get to see me?" She was seen that very morning. That is not a bad service.
I saw a patient recently who had come back from Thailand with a nasty tropical illness which clearly needed investigation. I picked up the phone and arranged for him to be seen by a consultant the same day. He was dealt with immediately with no problem and no queues.
I saw a patient a few weeks ago who was suffering from post-natal depression. I sent a fax to my local psychiatric hospital asking whether she could be seen as soon as convenient. I got a phone call from the consultant the same day, asking me to track the patient down so that she could be seen the same afternoon in the consultant's clinic. That is not a bad service.
The health service can still deliver the best. For every example that Opposition Members can list in which things have gone wrong, I can give examples in which things have gone very right indeed. We should pay tribute to the health service and talk it up, instead of talking it down. It is the best that we have, and I do not believe that the Opposition have any ideas about how the system that we have introduced could be improved on.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Like the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), I can give three examples of what has happened to patients—a gentleman, Mr. Roger Humphreys, admitted to the Royal Surrey county hospital on Sunday lunchtime but not admitted to a ward until Monday evening; a lady, whom I shall not name, with cancer who was left in the accident and emergency department for more than 10 hours; and a young man, a schizophrenic, who should have been seen by either a social worker or a psychiatric nurse as he had just burned his parents' house to the ground—all suffering from the Government's blight on the home counties.
Undoubtedly, matters in South-West Surrey are worse than ever before. I have had more letters than ever before. The waiting lists are up. When I went to the Department of Health, I took the view that a one-year wait was too long to be acceptable. At that time, there were 270,000 one-year waiters. When I left, there were 30,000. When this Government came to power, there were still 30,000; there are now 48,000. How many more examples do the Government want of the fact that the rhetoric, the spin and the trivial nature of their approach to the health service are not delivering?
For the first six months, time and again every Minister said of the previous Government, "We keep our promises; they broke theirs." We have not heard that trite claim today, because it is so blatantly not being delivered.


The Government were going to reduce waiting lists. As we know, that promise is costly—the Government are not delivering, and that promise is distorting priorities.
The Government have attacked managers. They have now reached the stage where managers apparently have to be appointed by the Secretary of State. Breaking all precedents, the chief executive of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has to be appointed by the Government. I hope that the First Division Association will make its voice heard about that.
The Government are opposed to postcode prescribing. I take the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) that postcode prescribing may not be desirable, but the alternative is centralisation, lack of innovation and the lowest common denominator. We see old Labour at work more in the health service than in any other area.
Professor Le Grand of the London School of Economics health unit—I declare an interest as a governor of LSE—has described how the third way has been adopted across the social agenda by the Labour party, but not in health. I urge the Government to look more pragmatically at the NHS, to have more of a partnership approach and to stop being so politically driven, because these endless irrelevant initiatives are irritating the professionals more and more and creating quite unrealistic expectations among patients.
Walk-in centres and NHS Direct are not bad ideas, but they are centralising. They are taking power to Ministers at exactly the time when, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe said, we should be devolving power down to the levels closest to the patients and the professionals.
Today, we had a welcome announcement on meningitis C. I declare an interest, which appears in the Register of Members' Interests, because I work with Wyeth, which has been closely associated with that initiative. Despite all the rhetoric about health action zones and inequalities, let us consider what the previous Government delivered—please can this Government do better?
Let us take the example of MMR immunisation. In 1989–90 in west Birmingham, among the worst areas in the country, only 49 per cent. of children were immunised. Two years later, as a result of the changes put in place by the Conservative Government—rewarding general practitioners for immunisation, against which the Labour party voted—that figure had risen to 82 per cent. In Newham, again an area of great deprivation, the party which Labour always said did not care about inequalities was responsible for an increase in the number of children immunised from 50 per cent. in 1989 to 81 per cent. in 1991.
I urge the Government to take more seriously the delivery of results. Health care is not about initiatives; it is about implementation and the follow through. That is why I am so appalled by what is happening on junior doctors' hours. I was the Minister who signed the new deal. I was also the Secretary of State who signed up to the targets in the "Health of the Nation" White Paper. I hope that in "Our Healthier Nation", with many similar targets in many similar areas, the Government will deliver. The Government would gain more respect if they left party politics aside—they do not need it with such a big majority—quietened down and delivered.
All these trivial initiatives take the time and energy of senior managers, Ministers and others at a time when, with more humility and pragmatism, they should be asking what the NHS can deliver. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) put the rationing issue well and truly on the agenda. The worry is that unless the Government are more truthful—this is why I so welcome the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—they will always give way to the articulate greedy as opposed to the inarticulate needy. The challenge will be the unfashionable causes and the inarticulate groups. The Government should say, "We cannot deliver everything for everybody."
Let us have some realism, integrity and honesty. The danger that the Government are storing up for themselves is that they will end up exactly like the previous Labour Government—expectations were massive, and the disillusionment and disappointment with the implementation was so great that people started to take industrial action and patients suffered.
We have had a welcome announcement but, please, now, two years into office, will the Government calm down and put the patients and the professionals, not the politicians, in the driving seat?

Sir Raymond Whitney: My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) speaks with great knowledge and understanding of the health service and makes an extremely valid case. By nature, I am an optimist and I came here today thinking that, perhaps, for the first time in 53 years, we could have a sensible political debate on how to provide health services in Britain. I thought that because, after 26 months of the realities of office, I hoped that the Labour party might, as my right hon. Friend suggests, face up to the problems that we all share in providing a proper health service for Britain, but that was not to be.
The reason that we have not had a sensible debate for 53 years is the myths that surround what happened in 1946. Sure enough, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) tried to resurrect those myths this afternoon. The fact is that all three major parties in Britain were, for many years before the health service was created, totally in favour of a health service which was comprehensive, universal and free at the point of delivery. There was great unanimity on that throughout the war, culminating in the 1944 White Paper introduced by a Conservative Minister. That White Paper was strongly endorsed by the Labour party at its Blackpool conference in October 1944.
The only difference—it was a significant difference—was that the majority of the Labour party, led in particular by the then Lord President of the Council, Mr. Herbert Morrison, the grandfather of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—and who, in the light of the problems that we have had since, would say that he was wrong?—said that we needed not the centralised and over-bureaucratic structure which Aneurin Bevan eventually put through the House, but a much more devolved structure with local autonomy and a great deal


more freedom from bureaucracy. Let us therefore be clear that we should not be fobbed off with the myths that we have heard this afternoon, and have had—

Mr. Hinchliffe: rose—

Sir Raymond Whitney: No, sorry; no chance at all.
We have had those myths for 53 years. For 53 years, Health Ministers have had the same challenges. I was a junior Health Minister for a short time and, like every other Minister, junior or senior, I accepted the basic framework of the health service with the two overriding essentials of universal care free at the point of delivery and the need to get as much money as possible out of the Treasury and spend it as wisely as one can. Governments of both complexions have tried that. The previous Conservative Government had a great record. We had a 74 per cent. increase in expenditure in real terms, an 86 per cent. increase in hospital treatments, and we doubled the number of hip replacements. We can all swap such statistics.
We should concentrate on the hospital sector. The hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) spoke about general practitioners. I accept that the level of GP provision in Britain is something of which we should be proud, but we should not be proud of the hospital problem, particularly the waiting times and all the ancillary services.
The Conservative Government tried hard with their massive increase in spending over 18 years. We produced a long list of improvements. We have now had two and a bit years of the Labour Government. In many ways, they have gone backwards. The previous Labour Government's record was appalling. Nurses' pay fell in real terms by 3 per cent. in one year, the hospital building programme was cut by a third, and doctors said that the health service was on the point of collapse. They are saying that again. I utter these words with care, but does not that suggest that the NHS is not the envy of the world? If it was, it would have been copied elsewhere.
The New Zealanders established a national health service for a short time and then walked away from it. The Swedes had something similar for a while, but they do not have such a service any more. There must be lessons that we can learn from other countries and it is about time that we, as responsible politicians, faced up to our responsibilities and accepted that reality. Instead, we always hear flannel from Labour spokesmen, and the Secretary of State gave us a prime example of that this afternoon.
Let us look to other countries. Of course they have great problems, but I am sure that there are things to learn from them. I believe that we have to go back to where Herbert Morrison was when he lost his battle with Aneurin Bevan 53 years ago, and look for a much higher degree of local autonomy and less of the centralisation that the Labour party by instinct enjoys so much.
We also have to look at additional sources of funding. We all know that money is not everything in respect of health care, but it is crucial. The latest figures available for per capita health spending in Britain are given in American dollars, which is usually the case with statistics. We spend $1,300 compared with $4,000 spent in the United States. I would not dream of suggesting that as an

example, but we should look at our sister countries—the other advanced industrial countries such as Germany and France—where average per capita spending is $2,000. That is a difference of $700 per person.

Laura Moffatt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Raymond Whitney: I am sorry, but I cannot.
With such a difference in spending, no wonder we have these problems. We should therefore open our minds and tell ourselves that the health service will not be safe in the hands of Labour or any other party unless we consider new solutions.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I fear that only a few minutes remain, and one of my hon. Friends—

Dr. Julian Lewis: Two.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Two of my hon. Friends wish to make further comment. I am relieved from discharging some of my duty, however, because the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) followed in thought, if not word by word, exactly what I have in mind.
Members of my family work in the national health service, and I have great admiration for such people and for the achievements of the NHS. I have no wish to scrap it but, like my hon. Friend, I have to recognise that no other country has copied us. The representatives of nation after nation have visited this country and rejected our solution, but they have suggested that there are ways of topping up public expenditure. They believe that that can be achieved through friendly societies and insurance, and we can do that in this country. A whole raft of measures has made it possible for a better service to be delivered in continental countries, with which we should compare this country.
In my judgment, it is disgraceful that, instead of recognising that, we indulge in the sort of political rhetoric that so often destroys the ability of the House to give some lead to the Government and the public and to help to explain to them why change is necessary. By doing that, we do a disservice to those who work in the health service. They suffer from some of the same frustrations as us and they do not want the health service to be destroyed, but we will not give them a pointer to ways in which the health service can be improved if we do not recognise that alternative sources of finance and training would enable them to discharge their duties more effectively.
I am not referring to creeping privatisation or anything of that kind, but I am concerned that we will lead people to ever declining standards of practice if we go on blindly assuming that we can continue to have a health service free at the point of demand and subsidised almost exclusively by the taxpayer.

Mr. David Amess: I am increasingly angry about the style and lack of substance of Her Majesty's Government. Frankly, they should be


absolutely ashamed of the way in which they have let the British people down by mismanaging the national health service since 1 May 1997.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Basildon!

Mr. Amess: From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman shouts the name of my former constituency. Yesterday, I visited a friend who is seriously ill in hospital and that gentleman has everything to thank the hospital for in respect of the treatment that he has received. This might take the smile off the hon. Gentleman's face: he might be interested to know that the staff who work at that particular hospital—

Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Amess: We have only five minutes to go, and if I gave way I should be abusing the procedures of the House.
Every hon. Member should thank the women and men who work in the NHS for the wonderful work that they do on behalf of our constituents. Many of us have relatives and friends whose lives have been saved by them. For example, the gentleman who runs my office has had two heart bypass operations and he is thankful for the skill of the surgeon concerned.
For 18 years, the Labour party politicised the health service. Day in, day out, it tried to blame the Conservative party for everything that was reported by the newspapers, but it is interesting that it is now a little bit uncomfortable with the headlines. This week, a leader in The Times headed "Patients and Patience" said:
In health reforms outcomes are what matter".
A headline in the Daily Mail, which the Labour party does not like, says:
At 103, Amy King had a right to expect exemplary treatment when taken to hospital. Instead, she was left weeping on a trolley for 28 hours, just another victim of our crumbling health service".
Day in, day out and week in, week out, headlines that are clearly criticising the Government appear in the newspapers.
It has sickened me to listen to Labour party apologists during this debate on an Opposition motion, which I believe has already been abused by combining it with a statement. Labour Members say, "What has been reported since 1 May 1997 is all wrong." The hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) and others were not Members of the House in previous Parliaments, but we all remember Jennifer's ear and all that. I believe that Labour Members should be absolutely ashamed of the way that they politicised the health service for 18 years.
Who thinks that the Labour party is doing a good job? Labour MPs do, but the professionals and the people who work in the health service know that the Labour party has let them down. Last week, I had the privilege to meet representatives of the Royal College of Nursing, which has said:
The NHS is facing its worst nursing shortage in 25 years. The RCN revealed in January 1999 that there are now up to 13,000 full-time nursing vacancies".

Local medical committees in Essex have passed two motions. One said that the conference had
no confidence in the present government's handling of the National Health Service
and
deplores the fragmentation of the structure of primary care delivery in the UK".
Another motion was passed, also saying that
conference has no confidence in this present government's handling of the National Health Service.
We have already heard what the British Medical Association has had to say. Labour MPs quoted what it had to say for 18 years—it was their greatest comforter—but it has turned against the Labour party. I am not sure whether the Liberal party still supports it; we shall find out when it elects its new leader in the middle of August. Now that it has turned against Labour Members, they do not want to know about it. As far as I am concerned, no one is satisfied with the NHS reforms except Labour Members. Those of us who sat through 77 hours of Standing Committee sittings on the Health Act 1999 know at first hand what those reforms amount to.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Amess: No. We know what those reforms amount to and the Minister of State, who was a member of that Committee, was responsible for overseeing a complete shambles. On Report, Labour Members had no idea what new clause 18 meant, and we did not have a satisfactory debate on the health service.
On 1 May 1997, the Labour party said, "Vote Labour and you will save the national health service." It should have said, "Vote Labour and you will have to save the national health service." The two people whom I blame for the mismanagement of affairs since 1 May 1997 are none other than the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health. The sooner the pair of them go, the better.

Mr. Philip Hammond: I begin by expressing our support for the Secretary of State's statement on meningitis vaccination, which builds on the immunisation programme that was at the heart of the previous Government's public health programme. It is extremely good news for all of us, especially those with small children.
We had the familiar speech from the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). Many of us have heard it before, and I do not intend to address it point by point. However, it was interesting that he attacked the previous Government on their record on the funding of long-term care. I noticed that he did not ask his Front-Bench colleagues when they were going to respond to the recommendations of the royal commission on the long-term care of the elderly. I suspect that the answer is that they will not respond, and that we shall discover that that is just one of the many promises made in opposition that the Government have now broken.
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) for nailing the hon. Member for Wakefield and the Secretary of State for once again making the cheap and unfounded slur that


the Tory party wants to privatise the NHS. That is their only response to health debates these days. It is untrue: the Government know it, and it is unworthy of them to keep repeating it.
I was interested to note that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) acknowledges that rationing exists in the NHS. I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether his hon. Friend has got it right, or whether he has a pager defect.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) for her eloquent exposé the weaknesses and pitfalls of the Government's primary care reform agenda, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), who drew attention to the problems of areas that are not among the Government's most favoured.
The focus of the debate is on the gap between the NHS that we were promised by the Government at the last general election and the NHS that is being delivered to us. It is about the deception that was practised on the British people by the party that posed as the saviour of our national health service, and about the betrayal of NHS staff, many of whom—of all political persuasions—placed their trust in the Government in May 1997. If the Secretary of State has achieved one thing unequivocally, it is, as the chairman of the BMA said, the alienation of the whole medical profession in just two years.
The Government are obsessed with style over substance. They believe that saying it is doing it, and they put politics before patients.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hammond: No, I shall not give way, because there is no time left in the debate.
No one doubts the Government's desire to achieve a better national health service, but wishful thinking is no substitute for policy competence. Spin doctors cannot deliver pain relief, and they cannot cure patients. Patients who are on waiting lists or waiting to get on those lists, or who cannot get the drugs that they need to prolong their lives or to relieve their pain, know that the Government have failed to deliver the better health service that they promised them at the general election. Their families, neighbours and friends know that.
The Government are presiding over an unprecedentedly centralised national health service. It is an NHS in crisis: clinical priorities are subordinated to political targets, and the nursing shortage is at its worst level for 25 years. We now have a year-round winter crisis, fewer beds; routine, same-day cancellations of operations; rising total waiting lists; and more people waiting longer for their treatment. The morale of the medical profession is at an all-time low, and we have creeping rationing of drugs and treatment across the system and across the country. The worst thing is that the Government deny that all that is happening. They will not address the issues because they do not even acknowledge them.
The contrast between the reality and the expectations that were deliberately, recklessly and irresponsibly raised by Labour's rhetoric at the last election could not be greater, and is already beginning to haunt the Secretary of State. I wish that I could say that that applies to the

Secretary of State for Health alone, but it does not, because this admixture of deception, betrayal and incompetence is a common theme throughout the Government. It applies to taxation, transport, education, environment, welfare reform and law and order.
The Secretary of State is also not alone in being responsible for the problems of the NHS. His colleagues on the Government Front Bench have helped him with those. The working time directive has added £100 million to his problems. The extra pension contributions that are required have added another £0.5 billion. The minimum wage, higher taxes on fuel and social chapter costs have also compounded his problems.
However, the Secretary of State alone is personally responsible for impaling himself on his ludicrous assertion that there is no rationing in the NHS, thus singlehandedly stifling the most important debate that we need to have about the future of our national health service.
We are discussing the promises that the Government made and the promises that they have broken. They promised to cut waiting lists by 100,000 as a first step by saving £100 million on NHS red tape. How have they done on that? According to their own figures, they have spent almost £1 billion on the waiting list initiative. They have not cut red tape; they have increased it. People in the NHS tell us that they are drowning in policy initiatives, targets, circulars and executive letters. After spending all that money, the Government have utterly failed even to achieve the target of a 100,000 reduction. Two years on, the figure is only 40,000 lower than it was in May 1997, and that is if we accept the Government's figures at face value and take no account of the additional 200,000 people who are waiting to see a specialist to have the chance and the privilege of getting on the Secretary of State's waiting list for treatment.
The Government have done no better on waiting times. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, they have not achieved equality of treatment across the country. In opposition, they explicitly recognised the dangers of upheaval in the service, yet they have introduced wholesale change, which the BMA has called "frightening".
The Government have abolished GP fundholding, and have created a levelling down of expectations in primary care. They betrayed the nurses in their first year of office by staging the nurses's pay claim, which did irreparable damage to morale in the nursing profession. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State snickers. He has recently introduced an expensive initiative to lure nurses back to the profession. He has told us how many people have made inquiries, but we do not know how many people have rejoined the NHS. The Government's amendment says 3,800, but the Secretary of State may be interested to know that the Minister of State, in a written answer to me just last week, gave the figure of 1,223, so there must be more than one spin doctor working in the Department of Health giving us two separate answers.
The Secretary of State should beware. The last time, the electorate judged the Labour party on what it said it would do for our national health service. The next time, they will judge it on what it has achieved, not on what it says.
More immediately relevant to the Secretary of State is that others may be judging him on what he has achieved in the NHS. Perhaps, somewhere in Downing street, the


Secretary of State's own end-of-term report—prepared by some faceless wonder—is gathering dust. The salient achievements that that report will list are: the alienation of the entire medical profession in just two years; the largest fall in public confidence rating of any Government Department since May 1997; and a failure to deliver on a single key pledge, despite a cynical manipulation of the system in an attempt to achieve that.
The Government will be judged on their competence to address the problems in the NHS, and not just on the sincerity of their aspirations for it. On that measure—competence—the sad but inevitable conclusion is that the Government have failed. The Secretary of State has failed, and Britain's health service is getting worse under Labour.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): It is quite clear from the debate that there is a difference between the Government and the Conservative party, but equally it is clear how the Tory party has changed. For years, the saving grace of the Conservative party—as it presided over the break-up and decline of the NHS—was that, at least, it felt that it should claim that the NHS was safe in its hands. We have seen in the past year, first under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), and now under the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), that the Conservatives have dropped that pretence.
It was explicit in the speeches by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) and by the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) that the NHS would not be safe in the hands of the Conservative party, and that will be on the record.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Gentleman has no right to say that. The suggestions that I have made about the need for extra topping-up from the private sector have been proposed by the Fabian Society and others, including Front-Bench spokesmen. That does not signal the break-up of the NHS.

Mr. Denham: The story now is that, in the view of the Conservative party, the NHS cannot be saved. The aim of what we have heard today has been to undermine, to demoralise, and to persuade people to abandon the NHS for the private alternative. Some Opposition Members seem to be under the impression that private health insurance works by giving money to patients. We should explain to them that it works the other way round.
We were elected as a Government to modernise the health service. The people knew at the last election, as they still know, that we were the only party which had faith in the future of the NHS. We said that it would take 10 years to modernise the NHS—we said that when we published the White Paper, and it will. However, the right start has been made in every part of the NHS.
The NHS depends on its staff. We need more staff, who are better trained and fairly rewarded, and that is what we are doing. Already, more people want to go into careers in nursing. More than 31,000 people have applied for pre-registration nursing and midwifery training this year, compared with just over 18,000 last year. The recruitment campaign that we launched after this year's pay award has brought more than 1,200 trained nurses who had left the

NHS back on to the wards in just five months, with more than 2,500 more in the process of returning. We are determined to tackle violence and harassment, and we will promote family-friendly employment to ensure that those nurses will want to stay in the NHS.
We implemented the pay review body awards for doctors and nurses for this year in full and without staging—for the first time in five years. There will be more doctors. The comprehensive spending review will allow the appointment of up to 15,000 extra nurses and 7,000 extra doctors. Some 2,200 more doctors joined the NHS in our first year, and there are more than 90,000 doctors for the first time in the history of the NHS.
I say to the hon. Member for Woodspring that I did not understand—I hope that I did not misinterpret—his comments about overseas doctors. A quarter of doctors in the NHS are overseas doctors today—about the same proportion as under the Conservative Government. His attack on the role of overseas doctors in the NHS will have alarmed many people in the House, and I hope that he will soon take the opportunity to make it clear what he meant.
Let me also point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is no evidence that the hours worked by junior doctors have risen. He should know that we agreed with the junior doctors to improve the conditions for the new deal on rest and other aspects, not the working hours, and that has led to an increased number of posts that do not comply with the "new" new deal. That is because we want tougher standards for junior doctors. I can assure the House, as we have on many occasions, that the hours worked by junior doctors have fallen since we came to office, and we will make sure that they continue to fall.
We have increased the number of nurse-training places. More than 1,500 extra pre-registration nurses will go into training in the next year, and we are on track to create an extra 6,000 training places by 2002. We are putting in an extra 1,000 medical school places for doctors. We are making sure that NHS staff will be properly trained and properly rewarded.
The NHS is changing, and all change can be disconcerting for some. However, right across the NHS there is a new leadership, which shares the Government's faith in the NHS and our vision, and which wants to make it work. We have abolished the internal market, which means that we will be able to put about £1 billion saved from bureaucracy back into patient care in this Parliament.
The managers have managed. With the doctors, nurses and other staff, they have delivered the biggest-ever fall in waiting lists. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) said, in 481 primary care groups, doctors and nurses are now in the driving seat, taking the responsibility for shaping the new NHS at local level. Some 170 primary care groups have expressed interest in becoming primary care trusts. Some 91 primary care groups, grass-roots GPs and GP co-operatives have applied to run the first NHS walk-in centres.
Primary care groups, and particularly GP co-operatives, are working closely with NHS Direct to bring about the new nurse-led helpline, and to bring services closer to patients. Over 400 doctors now work in personal medical service pilot schemes, and many hundreds more wish to do so.
Those people are taking part not because anyone told them to, but because they want to. They can see that the changes that we have introduced will be better for their patients and better for the services that they want to offer. The Royal College of Nursing described our new nursing strategy as a breakthrough document. There will be better careers and wider roles for nurses, and already we are training 23,500 nurses to take on the responsibility of nurse prescribing.
Doctors, nurses and other health professionals are developing new roles in the new NHS, building on the best of what is already there and tackling new needs in new ways. We have started the modernisation of the NHS and we will see it through. We promised to tackle waiting lists, and we are doing so. When we came into office, waiting lists were at record levels and rising. Now, waiting lists are falling and, as waiting lists fall, waiting times will fall.
In 1992, when the Conservative Government launched the patients charter, they said that no one should wait for more than two years. A bit later, they said that no one should wait for more than 18 months. However, they never achieved that target—not for one month in any year did they achieve the waiting target that they set themselves. In England, for the past nine months in a row, no one has been reported as waiting for more than 18 months.
We should all like waiting lists to be shorter; but for some conditions, waiting lists must be shorter. Therefore, we set out to ensure that, from April, any woman with suspected breast cancer needing urgent treatment is seen by a specialist within two weeks. In 2000, we want to extend that to cover all cancer conditions.
Across key health problems—such as coronary heart disease, mental health and the needs of older people—national service frameworks will state the service standards that we want the national health service to provide to everyone, everywhere—not with local, postcode prescribing—

Mr. Hammond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government's amendment states quite clearly that 3,800 nurses have returned to the NHS "so far this year". In his speech, the Minister has just confirmed that the real number is 1,233—as he has confirmed to me in a written answer—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by saying that that is a matter for debate.

Mr. Denham: An awful lot more nurses have returned to nursing under the current Government than under the previous one. Moreover, the amendment mentions nurses "returning" to the national health service. Nurses are returning to the national health service because they, like Labour Members, have confidence in the future of the national health service. If there is one lesson to be learned from this debate, it is that we have a choice not between the new and old

NHS, but between the new NHS, represented by the Government, and no NHS, represented by Conservative Members.

Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I completely understand why you said what you did a few moments ago, but the 3,800 figure appears on today's Order Paper. Therefore, the House is being given—inadvertently, I trust—misleading information on which to vote. Surely that is a point that you can address, sir.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter not for the occupant of the Chair, but for hon. Members in deciding how to vote on the motion.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 327.

Division No. 260]
[7.1 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Day, Stephen


Allan, Richard
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Amess, David
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Duncan, Alan


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Nigel


Baker, Norman
Faber, David


Baldry, Tony
Fabricant, Michael


Ballard, Jackie
Fallon, Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Fearn, Ronnie


Bercow, John
Flight, Howard


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forsythe, Clifford


Blunt, Crispin
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Body, Sir Richard
Foster, Don (Bath)


Boswell, Tim
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fox, Dr Liam


Brake, Tom
Fraser, Christopher


Brand, Dr Peter
Gale, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Garnier, Edward


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gibb, Nick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burns, Simon
Gorrie, Donald


Cable, Dr Vincent
Gray, James


Cash, William
Green, Damian


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Greenway, John



Grieve, Dominic


Chidgey, David
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Chope, Christopher
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Clappison, James
Hammond, Philip


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hancock, Mike



Harris, Dr Evan


Collins, Tim
Harvey, Nick


Colvin, Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Heath, David (Somerton &Frome)


Cotter, Brian
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Cran, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Curry, Rt Hon David
Horam, John


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Hunter, Andrew






Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Sanders, Adrian


Jenkin, Bernard
Sayeed, Jonathan


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Shepherd, Richard



Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Keetch, Paul
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Key, Robert
Soames, Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Spring, Richard


Kirkwood, Archy
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lansley, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Leigh, Edward
Streeter, Gary


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Stunell, Andrew


Lidington, David
Swayne, Desmond


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Syms, Robert


Llwyd, Elfyn
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Loughton, Tim
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Luff, Peter
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Tonge, Dr Jenny


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Townend, John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tredinnick, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Trend, Michael


Major, Rt Hon John
Tyler, Paul


Malins, Humfrey
Tyrie, Andrew


Maples, John
Viggers, Peter


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Walter, Robert


May, Mrs Theresa
Wardle, Charles


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Waterson, Nigel


Moore, Michael
Webb, Steve


Nicholls, Patrick
Wells, Bowen


Norman, Archie
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Oaten, Mark
Whittingdale, John


Öpik, Lembit
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Page, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Paice, James
Willetts, David


Pickles, Eric
Willis, Phil


Prior, David
Wilshire, David


Randall John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)



Woodward, Shaun


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Yeo, Tim


Rendel, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robathan, Andrew



Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Mrs. Jacqui Lait and


St Aubyn, Nick
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bennett, Andrew F


Ainger, Nick
Benton, Joe


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'tryNE)
Best, Harold


Alexander, Douglas
Betts, Clive


Allen, Graham
Blackman, Liz


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Blizzard, Bob


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Ashton, Joe
Borrow, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Banks, Tony
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Barron, Kevin
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Battle, John
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Bayley, Hugh
Browne, Desmond


Begg, Miss Anne
Buck, Ms Karen


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Burden, Richard


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Burgon, Colin





Butler, Mrs Christine
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Follett, Barbara


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Caplin, Ivor
Foulkes, George


Casale, Roger
Fyfe, Maria


Caton, Martin
Galloway, George


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gardiner, Barry


Chaytor, David
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gerrard, Neil


Clapham, Michael
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clwyd, Ann
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Coaker, Vernon
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cohen, Harry
Grocott, Bruce


Coleman, Iain
Grogan, John


Colman, Tony
Gunnell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hain, Peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Corbett, Robin
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cousins, Jim
Hanson, David


Cox, Tom
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Cranston, Ross
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Crausby, David
Healey, John


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Heppell, John


Cummings, John
Hesford, Stephen


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Hill, Keith



Hinchliffe, David


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Dalyell, Tam
Hoey, Kate


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hood, Jimmy


Darvill, Keith
Hoon, Geoffrey


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hope, Phil


Davidson, Ian
Hopkins, Kelvin


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Howells, Dr Kim


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Dean, Mrs Janet
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Denham, John
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dismore, Andrew
Humble, Mrs Joan


Dobbin, Jim
Hurst, Alan


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Hutton, John


Donohoe, Brian H
Iddon, Dr Brian


Doran, Frank
Illsley, Eric


Dowd, Jim
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Drew, David
Jenkins, Brian


Drown, Ms Julia
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth



Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Efford, Clive
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Ellman, Mrs Louise



Ennis, Jeff
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Etherington, Bill
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Fisher, Mark
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally






Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Mudie, George


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Mullin, Chris


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Kemp, Fraser
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Khabra, Piara S
Norris, Dan


Kidney, David
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Kilfoyle, Peter
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
O'Hara, Eddie


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Olner, Bill


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Laxton, Bob
Palmer, Dr Nick


Lepper, David
Pearson, Ian


Leslie, Christopher
Pendry, Tom


Levitt, Tom
Pickthall, Colin


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Pike, Peter L


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Plaskitt, James


Linton, Martin
Pollard, Kerry


Lock, David
Pond, Chris


McAllion, John
Pope, Greg


McAvoy, Thomas
Pound, Stephen


McCabe, Steve
Powell, Sir Raymond


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Macdonald, Calum
Primarolo, Dawn


McDonnell, John
Prosser, Gwyn


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Purchase, Ken


McIsaac, Shona
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Quinn, Lawrie


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rapson, Syd


McNamara, Kevin
Raynsford, Nick


McNulty, Tony
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


MacShane, Denis
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


McWalter, Tony



McWilliam, John
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Mallaber, Judy
Rooker, Jeff


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Rooney, Terry


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Rowlands, Ted


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Roy, Frank


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Ruane, Chris


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ruddock, Joan


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Salter, Martin


Martlew, Eric
Sarwar, Mohammad


Meale, Alan
Savidge, Malcolm


Merron, Gillian
Sawford, Phil


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Sedgemore, Brian


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Sheerman, Barry


Mitchell, Austin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Moffatt, Laura
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Singh, Marsha


Moran, Ms Margaret
Skinner, Dennis


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)





Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Trickett, Jon


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Snape, Peter
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Soley, Clive
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Spellar, John
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Vaz, Keith


Steinberg, Gerry
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stevenson, George
Walley, Ms Joan


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Ward, Ms Claire


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wareing, Robert N


Stinchcombe, Paul
White, Brian


Stoate, Dr Howard
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stott, Roger
Wicks, Malcolm


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stringer, Graham
Wilson, Brian


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Winnick, David


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wise, Audrey


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wray, James


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wyatt, Derek


Timms, Stephen
Tellers for the Noes:


Tipping, Paddy
Mr. David Clelland and


Toutig Don
Mr. Mike Hall.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the action the Government has taken to turn around the National Health Service by finding £21 billion extra funds for the coming three years, starting building work on 13 new hospitals, modernising every Accident and Emergency Department that needs it, abolishing the unfair and divisive system of fundholding and replacing it with Primary Care Groups putting doctors and nurses in the driving seat, cutting waiting lists, ending 18 month waiting in the NHS, creating the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and National Service Frameworks to promote quality treatment, delivering the biggest real terms pay rise for nurses for 10 years, publishing the most comprehensive strategy ever produced for improving the status, training, pay and job opportunities for Britain's half a million nurses, midwives and health visitors, with 3,800 nurses returning to the NHS so far this year and 2,200 additional doctors in the Government's first year of office; further welcomes the 450,000 more waiting list operations carried out last year plus the 142,000 extra emergency cases treated, and half a million more outpatient cases dealt with; and congratulates the staff on providing record results in what remains the fairest and most efficient healthcare system in the world.

Energy Tax

[Relevant documents: The Ninth Report of Session 1998–99 from the Trade and Industry Committee on the Impact on Industry of the Climate Change Levy, HC 678.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move,
That this House notes that the proposed energy tax represents a huge transfer of cash from manufacturing and energy intensive industries to the public and service sectors; threatens to drive large energy users out of the United Kingdom altogether and is a badly targeted and inefficient way of reducing CO2 emissions; believes this is another stealth tax on industry and notes the Government has increased the Landfill Tax without applying the revenue to offsetting cuts in National Insurance Contributions as was done by the last Conservative Government; and calls on the Government to consult on alternative ways of meeting Britain's international commitments to counter global warming and to withdraw this damaging threat to industry.
The subject of the debate is familiar; it is Labour's addiction to new taxes. The House knows that before the election the Prime Minister promised not to raise taxes, but that he and his Government have broken that promise repeatedly in every Budget since then.
The Government talk of supporting the family, but they tax the family. They talk about encouraging savings, but they tax savings. They talk of encouraging competitiveness in industry, while regulating industry and taxing it. Halfway through this Parliament, British industry already faces £30 billion in extra taxation over the lifetime of the Parliament. That is not my figure but that of the British Chambers of Commerce.
Now the Government plan another new tax—an energy tax, which was announced this year, will be enacted in next year's Finance Bill, and will come into effect in 2001. It is designed to raise an extra £1,750 million a year—a figure recorded in the Red Book.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way at this early stage. Does he accept that the proposal is revenue neutral, because all the money raised will be given back in cuts in national insurance contributions?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Later I shall deal specifically with the untested assertion that the tax is in some sense revenue neutral. It is anything but revenue neutral for the companies and sectors that pay it.
The Government are building on what they have already done to the British haulage industry, which faces annual escalating rises in diesel duty. The rise amounts to 12 per cent. for this year alone. The haulage industry has been made uncompetitive in the single market, and to the extent that it can pass on its costs to British industry as a whole, it has made the rest of British industry uncompetitive too.
All those increases in diesel taxes and other taxes are being made behind an environmental smoke screen, but the real reason is to raise revenue. Not content with what they have already done, the Government plan to raise

another extra £1.75 billion. They claim that that is revenue neutral, because they will cut employers' national insurance contributions by an equivalent amount.

Ms Joan Walley: The right hon. Gentleman talks about a smoke screen, but does he agree that we desperately need an international agreement to deal with carbon dioxide emissions and global warming? Does he not realise how important it is to ensure that the United Kingdom plays a leading part in that?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It may be news to the hon. Lady, but there already is an international agreement; it was signed at Kyoto. What she wants has already been done. Those are binding legal commitments, and the Conservatives agree that we must meet our international commitments. Later in my speech I shall explain how we will do that.
First, however, I shall deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) about the so-called revenue neutrality. No one believes in that. Let us consider what the Government have already done in terms of other environmental taxes. An instance would be the landfill tax introduced by the previous Conservative Government. We applied all the revenue—a smaller sum but substantial nevertheless—to an offsetting cut in national insurance contributions. The then Labour Opposition supported us.
What happened when Labour took office? The Labour Government put up the tax on landfill from £7 to £10 a tonne. Not a penny is going back to industry in offsetting cuts. Moreover, they have announced a new tax escalator. The landfill tax will now go up every year for the next five years, but none of that extra revenue will be returned to industry. The Government will have more than doubled that tax, and none of the revenue will be recycled.

Mr. David Chaytor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No; I want to ask the Economic Secretary a question, as she will answer the debate. Will she confirm now that all the revenue, now and in the future, will be used to cut employers' national insurance contributions? Such a simple question demands a simple answer.
The Economic Secretary's silence is very eloquent, and we are entitled to draw one conclusion from it—that the Government will do to the energy tax what they did to the landfill tax. They will introduce it at a lower rate, and then they will put it up, forgetting all their promises and waffle about tax neutrality. That is the Government's game, and we are now forewarned.
However, even if we accept that the revenue will be applied to an offsetting cut, the proposed tax represents a massive transfer of cash from the manufacturing and energy-using sectors of the economy to the service sector, and to the public sector in particular. The public sector alone will benefit to the tune of about £150 million a year, even if it takes no action to cut energy bills.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the report from Cambridge Econometrics, published on 6 July? It states that the


climate change levy will create more jobs and save more CO2 than the Government predict, and that new energy-saving devices will help manufacturing industry in the long term, by creating jobs and making them more efficient.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That prediction takes no account of job losses in industries hit by the levy, nor of the jobs that will be exported as firms migrate away from the United Kingdom to avoid the levy.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that agriculture—and especially the protected horticultural sector, which recycles all its carbon dioxide—will be disproportionately hard hit by this perfidious tax?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. Many sectors and industries will be badly hit, and I shall give some more detail about one in particular. Sir Brian Moffatt, the chairman of British Steel, estimates that that company will pay a net £220 million a year under this tax. He says that British Steel will be forced
to close plants here which will be replaced by inefficient plants in other parts of the world.
That answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). If efficient British plants are replaced by inefficient plants in other parts of the world without environmental control, the global atmosphere will suffer and British industry will be grievously hurt.

Mr. Llew Smith: I represent a steel community. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why British Steel is bleating about the financial costs of the energy tax when recently it was able to return about £700 million to shareholders? It has also been making people redundant and throwing them on the scrap heap, in an area of Wales with one of the highest levels of unemployment.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed the renaissance in steel making plants since privatisation and the other industrial reforms introduced by the previous Government. It is a British success story. However, the British Steel chairman should know something about the industry. His point was that that renaissance is being put at risk because of a badly targeted and ill considered tax that will drive plants overseas.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I hope to be able to make some points about steel if I catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that he is describing the worst case. Last week, one of British Steel's most senior executives came to the House and talked about a tax of £55 million. The eventual level that is set may be higher or lower, but the right hon. Gentleman must use accurate and honest figures, not the worst-case projection.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman admits that the industry will be damaged. We are now talking merely about the extent of that damage.

The chairman of British Gas might have got it slightly wrong, but the impact on investment and employment in an important British industry will be devastating.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend has been generous in giving way, and too generous with the Government. The Government say that the tax will be revenue neutral, but as jobs in the chemical and steel industries go overseas, so will their tax-raising potential. To pay for the offset, the tax on energy-using industries will therefore have to be increased. Will not the result be that we will lose the jobs, but that the carbon dioxide will be created in other countries rather than here?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is an interesting point. The Government are committed to raising a certain sum. If the tax is rendered impossible to collect due to migration overseas by businesses—if they in effect evade the tax—there will be an extra burden on the firms that remain. When the Select Committee on Trade and Industry quizzed the Economic Secretary, she was unable to "offer any clear guidance" on the point. Perhaps this debate will get some hard answers to hard questions, such as that posed by my hon. Friend.
I have spoken about steel, but I shall now move to aluminium. There is an Alcan plant in the constituency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Alcan is a very responsible company that recycles most of its product and already derives more than a quarter of its energy needs from hydro sources. However, the price of its product is set internationally on the London Metal Exchange. It can do nothing about that. Therefore, the extra costs being loaded on Alcan by the Government have to be met by the company, through lower production, employment and investment. There is a real threat that such an internationally owned company will seek to invest and expand abroad, rather than in the United Kingdom.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No, I must make progress.
Other sectors will be in trouble too. The whole chemical industry is threatened, and firms involved with paper, cement, horticulture, sugar and farming will all pay far more in tax than they will ever receive back in national insurance contribution cuts. All those firms will be rendered uncompetitive. I am grateful that those and other points were drawn out in the Select Committee report published earlier this week.
It is a most useful report. The Select Committee has a Labour majority but the report is unanimous, and could not be more clear about the threat. It states that the tax
could prove a blunt instrument which does considerable damage to sectors of the British economy already struggling to maintain their competitiveness.
In the same chapter, the report states that the north-west of the country could lose £500 million in tax paid by those industries and that all that money will go from north to south.
That is a bizarre form of industrial support. The Labour Government long since gave up representing the interests of manufacturing industry, but surely even they can see that it is bizarre that the north-west of England, one of the


United Kingdom's poorer regions, should pay £500 million that will go to support service industries, and the public sector, in places such as the south-east.

Mr. John Bercow: With regard to my right hon. Friend's references to the north-west, is he aware that the debate is graced by the presence of a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry who also represents a constituency in the north-west? I refer to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who, I feel sure, will wish to catch the Speaker's eye in order to reinforce my right hon. Friend's powerful arguments.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall stay specially to hear the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) speak. I hope that he will not resile from a report published only yesterday with his signature on it. We all look forward to hearing from him.
It is not only heavy industry that will suffer. Rural England will be hit—again. Calor Gas—an essential supplier of energy to remote rural areas, small businesses, caravan parks, horticulture and agriculture—observes that gas is to be taxed for the first time, but its competitor fuel, oil, will not. That will induce a switch from gas towards oil, which is both bad for the environment and contrary to the Government's transport policy, for which duty on gas is being cut to persuade people to switch away from oil.
Northern Ireland's economy is sensitive and vulnerable, but the Financial Times has reported:
Energy tax threatens N Ireland plans for gas link".
Taxing gas—making it relatively less competitive—puts at risk the proposed pipeline between Belfast and Dublin. That is an odd way in which to support the peace process. The Northern Irish economy is being made less competitive as people are encouraged to switch from gas to less environmentally benign oil.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I have given way generously and should like to make an important point.
An additional muddle is that the proposals do not even try to tax carbon. The Government want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but electricity from sources that produce no carbon dioxide, such as nuclear plants, will be taxed at the same rate as electricity derived from coal or oil. There is no incentive to switch from a source of energy that produces CO2 to one that does not. That runs contrary to Lord Marshall's report, and to the recommendations of the Select Committee. I risk embarrassing the hon. Member for Chorley, but the report states, on page xxiv:
There would appear to be some confusion within Government about the extent to which the Climate Change Levy could and should reflect the carbon content of fuels … We recommend that the Government seek ways to link the Levy, at least broadly, to the carbon content of fuels.
Will the Minister clear up the confusion? If the Government aim to reduce production of carbon dioxide, why do they not tax carbon instead of energy in general?
The whole botch of proposals is illustrated by the case of Britannia Zinc, a smelter in Avonmouth. Many of my constituents work at the competitive plant, which operates on thin margins in an international business. Unavoidably, it uses a great deal of energy. It is a matter of physics, not politics, that certain chemical reactions cannot occur unless a lot of energy is used. The firm calculates that it will pay 20 times more in tax than it will receive back in national insurance contribution reductions. The plant is foreign-owned, and it has a sister plant in Germany. The parent company says that tax in Germany is capped at a much lower level, intended to protect industries vulnerable to international competition.
The Government will rebate the levy by only 50 per cent., and only selected, privileged industries deemed fully energy efficient will receive it. That is wholly inadequate. No matter how efficient Britannia Zinc and many other plants become, they will have to pay large sums, and that will make them uncompetitive in world markets. Will the Minister promise that such companies will be exempted—or substantially exempted—from the tax? There is great uncertainty in the market about the Government's proposals, which are already jeopardising the inward investment on which the UK depends. Will the Minister put it beyond doubt that the Government will take no action to prejudice the position of highly vulnerable international industries?

Ms Walley: The right hon. Gentleman is spreading needless alarm. Under the Government's proposals, opportunities exist for negotiated agreements with energy-intensive users. We seek consensus with industry. How can the right hon. Gentleman ignore that?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Lady is quite wrong. The 50 per cent. levy means that no matter how efficient companies are, they will pay 50 per cent. of the tax. They cannot reduce energy consumption below a given technical level. Anyone making chlorine must pass an electric current through a solution: there is no other way to do it. No matter how efficient anyone is, an irreducible minimum of energy must be used. The Government are telling firms that they must pay the levy, no matter how efficient they are. That will drive chlorine production out of the UK.

Mr. Paul Keetch: The right hon. Gentleman is right. The third largest employer in my constituency, Special Metals Wiggins, employs 1,000 people to produce specialist nickel alloys. The firm shares many of the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) may wish to know that a small specialist company that talks to another may end up disclosing to its competitors large amounts of its business. In specialist areas, such as high-intensity metal production, the tax will cost jobs. For Special Metals Wiggins—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had long enough for his intervention.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Although the main impact of the tax will be more direct, the associated disclosure of information to competitors and use of management time will undermine British industry.
A further lunacy requires our attention. Britannia Zinc wants to cut carbon dioxide emissions by installing a gas-fired electricity generating station. The company has applied to do so, but the Government have placed a moratorium on such stations. The Government threaten the company with a tax but, at the same time, they stop the company making required cuts in carbon dioxide emissions. There can be no better example of how Government policies pull in opposite directions. The Government must sort out some of the mad paradoxes and contradictions at the heart of their policy. We have a tax-driven policy that is clumsy and counterproductive. We need a policy to deal with the specifics of global warming in a way that does no damage, or as little damage as possible to our competitive position.
The Conservative party fully understands the dangers of global warming. We will meet our international commitments. We have always done so. When Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister she was the first to recognise the importance of the issue. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was Prime Minister, he went to Rio to negotiate and sign the international agreement to stabilise CO2 emissions. We met that commitment. Most other countries did not, but the United Kingdom did. We knew that one could do that only if one worked with industry and listened to the alternatives to taxation.
Many industries are willing and anxious to play their part. The Chemical Industries Association has already obtained an agreement with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions which commits the industry to improving its energy efficiency by 20 per cent. up to 2005. If such agreements fail, that will be the time when penalties may be appropriate, but it is not right to impose a tax even if companies meet targets and become as efficient as is technically possible.
Emissions trading was one of the options proposed by the Marshall committee. A cut in CO2 would be required from an industry or sector and firms able to make larger cuts would be able to sell them to firms unable or unwilling to make the same reductions. The result would be that the specified, targeted, definite overall reduction in CO2 would take place in the most cost-efficient way. It is a market solution and it does least damage to industry. It works in the United States, where there is emissions trading for sulphur. BP Amoco in Britain already uses it within its own plants. It is anxious to talk to the Government about it. The Conservative party supports it, but again the Government are dithering.
The Select Committee from which I have already quoted said:
The Government has sent out mixed messages".
How can the Government expect industry to get its act together when the Government cannot decide whether they will introduce a tax, emissions trading or a mixture of both? The only clear message coming out of the Government at the minute is that if they face any problem, they reach for the tax lever.

Mr. Damian Green: My right hon. Friend has pointed out the perverse effects of the Government's actions, which are more to do with raising tax than controlling emissions, which we all want to do. Does he

agree that the game is given away by the fact that, of the money that the Government intend to raise from the climate change levy, a derisory amount will be reinvested in renewable and sustainable energy sources, showing that they are not serious about reducing emissions, but are very serious about raising money from British industry?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Absolutely. It is a token amount. About 4 per cent. of the yield is to be allocated to renewable energy and other types of environmentally benign energy production. That is an inadequate response.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Forgive me, I wish to conclude on this point.
What we know after we have been through all the fog of uncertainty around the Government's policy is that they have come up with a tax-driven solution. That tax is badly thought out, badly targeted, damaging, anti-competitive, wrong and we will oppose it.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'notes that there is now compelling evidence that climate change needs to be tackled, that there is therefore a need for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that the United Kingdom has a legally-binding target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions set under the Kyoto Protocol; welcomes the recommendations of Lord Marshall on the case for a climate change levy; further welcomes the measures taken by the Government to help British business, including cutting corporation tax rates to their lowest ever level; welcomes the Government's decision to pre-announce the introduction of the climate change levy by two years to give time for further consultation on its design; and supports the Government's determination to work with industry and other parties to ensure that it meets its environmental objectives whilst safeguarding Britain's international competitiveness.'
Before I turn to the substance of the matter, I should like to apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and through you to the House. The debate has come, as all right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, in the middle of a particularly busy week, and I am afraid that I have prior engagements that I have not been able to abandon completely so I will not be able to fulfil the normal courtesies of the House and be present for the winding-up speeches. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will respond fully to the debate and I look forward to reading the record of what I am sure will be an extremely interesting occasion.
The debate is about climate change and what we do about it. There is increasing evidence that it is happening. As the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions report on indicators of climate change notes, in England, four of the five warmest years in the 340-year record have occurred in the last decade. We have certainly all noticed that in recent days.
We cannot doubt that climate change is the result of human activity. What industrial development since the 18th century has created, sustainable development on the


dawn of the 21st century must start to put right. In the words of the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry published yesterday:
The question is how, not whether, greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced.
I am sure that I shall not be alone tonight in referring to the Select Committee's useful report. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has already referred to it. I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) and other members of the Committee for their contribution to the debate.
The United Kingdom has a legally binding target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, set under the Kyoto protocol, of a 12.5 per cent. reduction on 1990 levels on a basket of six greenhouse gases by the period 2008–12.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the hon. Lady have any plans to deal with the other five greenhouse gases? The matter for debate this evening, of course, merely affects CO2.

Ms Hewitt: Of course we have plans, but I shall focus on CO2 emissions, which is the main greenhouse gas. We have discussed them, especially in relation to road transport, to deal, for instance, with emissions of sulphur.

Dr. Peter Brand: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Hewitt: No. I wish to make this point.
Meeting the Kyoto target is the beginning, not the end of the process. As Lord Marshall put it in his report:
The commitments made at Kyoto are only the beginning if we are really going to tackle the problem of climate change.…Whatever programme the Government designs will need to look beyond the current round of targets and provide long-term, continuing, incentives to reduce emissions.
That is why we committed ourselves in the manifesto on which we were elected to a 20 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions by 2010.

Mr. Barry Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for the urgency with which she saw my steel workers. May I tell her of the concerns also held by my cement and paper-mill workers? Having heard the fulmination of the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), does she intend to include in her speech the remarkable way in which she plans to consult across industry and is already receiving deputations? Surely, with two years to go, we can see a done-deal for the industry.

Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has made an extremely important point and, more broadly, a constructive contribution to the debate.

Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Hewitt: No. I will make a little more progress.
The United Kingdom is not alone in having to meet the targets set under the Kyoto protocol. On current projections, most overseas countries will have to introduce new measures in one form or another if they are to meet those targets. In many cases, the targets set for

those countries are even more stringent than ours. That is why since 1990, seven European countries have introduced carbon or energy taxes. The Italian Government recently announced plans for a new CO2 tax.

Mr. Swayne: Why is the Minister introducing a tax that will penalise protected horticulture, which recycles its CO2? Why does she not introduce a tax that provides an incentive to reduce CO2 emissions?

Ms Hewitt: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would ask about protected horticulture; we shall consider that matter in the course of our consultations. If he will be a little more patient, I shall come to the detailed way in which we are considering the design of the levy.
I want to stress that all sectors of the economy must play their part in meeting those targets. In respect of transport, of course, the previous Government introduced the road fuel duty escalator, which we have maintained. In the domestic sector, we have made it clear—unlike the previous Government—that we will not introduce new taxes on the domestic use of fuel power.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: rose—

Ms Hewitt: Let me finish my point before I give way. To introduce new taxes would only add to the appalling problem of fuel poverty that we inherited from the previous Government—some 5 million families and elderly people who cannot afford to heat their homes properly. I shall now give way to the hon. Gentleman, who presumably supported VAT on fuel.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Lady might recall from her appearance before the Environmental Audit Committee that I may well be broadly supportive of her on some of the issues that she has raised. On domestic carbon dioxide emissions, does she agree that simply to say that nothing more can be done because of fuel poverty ignores the fact that growth is greatest in the domestic sector, whereas the reductions have been greatest in the manufacturing sector? Are we not in danger of missing the targets that we should be addressing?

Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Of course, we must tackle fuel poverty; we shall do that by expanding the home energy efficiency scheme, by revising building regulations and by working with our European partners to ensure that we have high-efficiency products in the domestic sector—backed up by mandatory labelling and minimum legal standards. As I said, every sector must play its part, but, because of fuel poverty, taxation is not an appropriate policy weapon for the domestic sector.

Mr. Green: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Hewitt: I should like to make a little more progress before I give way again.
Business needs to play its part. My hon. Friends and I welcome the lead already taken by many British companies in helping to cut greenhouse gas emissions. There has been a 65 per cent. improvement in energy efficiency in the aluminium sector since 1990.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Lady mentioned the contribution of the aluminium industry. Will she take account of the overall environmental record of that industry—especially its recycling capacity and the energy saving that it has already undertaken? Will she take seriously the suggestions made by the industry so that the design of the tax can take account of the industry's special problems?

Ms Hewitt: That is precisely what we are doing. I have recently held valuable discussions with representatives of Alcan and of the aluminium sector. That is one reason why I specifically mentioned the industry.
In the public sector, we have set a target for energy efficiency throughout the Government estate of a 20 per cent. improvement on 1990 levels by March 2000. All of that—and much more—is welcome.

Mr. Dorrell: The Minister has placed considerable stress on the importance of every sector making a contribution to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Is it not extraordinary that the Government should continue their moratorium on gas-fired power stations—the single effect of which is to create an incentive for the electricity-generating sector to shift back towards higher carbon dioxide emissions?

Ms Hewitt: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. There is no moratorium on gas-fired power stations; every application is considered on its merits—[Interruption.] I am delighted to say that a large number of applications have been accepted for the use of gas in combined heat and power plants. That is the most efficient way of using gas for the production of energy.

Mr. Robathan: Is the hon. Lady aware that the combined heat and power industry is extremely concerned that there has not yet been any reassurance that it will be exempt from the energy tax? Indeed, it would fly in the face of everything if CHP and renewable energy were not exempt from the energy tax.

Ms Hewitt: In the consultation document, we specifically stated that we wanted to consider the right way to treat combined heat and power within the climate change levy. That is what we are doing.
The welcome improvements that have been made by many—not all—British companies are not the end of the issue. Much more can and must be done. As Lord Marshall stated,
there remains scope even in energy intensive industries for energy savings and emissions reductions which are relatively cost-effective.
He continued:
many business representatives acknowledged that their industries were by no means at the technological frontier on energy efficiency.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Lady cut through some of the subterfuge that will, no doubt, continue throughout

the debate? Will she admit that the only logical, sensible way forward would be to cut carbon emissions, and that the reason the Government will not do so is because that would cut the amount of coal burnt in this country compared with other fuels? That is why she has been sent to the Dispatch Box with such a weak case.

Ms Hewitt: I am sorry that Conservative Members regard as frivolous or as a subterfuge a serious response to this serious issue. I suspect that that reflects the way that they behaved when they were in government.
The climate change levy—as spelled out in the consultation document—needs to be primarily based on energy because, for the reasons that I have given, this is a downstream, not an upstream, tax. Given the electricity pool arrangements, it is not possible for any business user to tell how much of his electricity comes from a particular source—whether it be coal, gas or a renewable source. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) simply reveals the fact that he does not understand the electricity pool arrangements.
The prices paid by industry for gas and electricity have tumbled in recent years. Between 1990 and 1998, average industrial—[Interruption.] Conservative Members might not want to hear the facts, but it is important to understand them. Average industrial gas and electricity prices—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have hon. Members shouting at the Minister. The Minister must be heard.

Ms Hewitt: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Average industrial gas and electricity prices fell by 44 per cent. and 24 per cent. respectively in real terms.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the hon. Lady accept that her argument about the pool does not stand up to examination? Why not exempt companies that either sign contracts for, or themselves install, dedicated capacity based on lower carbon emission generation, or non-carbon emission generation—such as renewables?

Ms Hewitt: That is not how the electricity pool works at present. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman seriously suggests that the rate of the climate change levy should vary every half hour according to the marginal supplier into the pool. However, of course we are considering the whole issue—

Mr. Davies: rose—

Ms Hewitt: Let me finish with the hon. Gentleman's previous intervention.
We are considering how the review of electricity trading arrangements and the possibility, after that review, of the establishment of contracts for green trading arrangements should be treated in the climate change levy. I shall give way once more to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), but then I must make some progress.

Mr. Davies: I think that the hon. Lady does not understand how the pool system works. It is perfectly possible for industry to sign contracts for supply outside


the pool—to sign contracts with a dedicated supplier or to install its own capacity. Why does she not exempt from her levy the type of capacity that is delivered outside the pool, based on low carbon or non-carbon emission generation?

Ms Hewitt: The previous Administration left us a mess in respect of the electricity pool. We are sorting it out.
The right hon. Member for Wells referred to the DTI Select Committee. I refer him to another part of its report, which stresses:
Because of lower international oil prices, the price reductions stemming in part from liberalisation and competition, and the fall in the Fossil Fuel Levy on electricity, taxes upon energy might need to rise rather than fall.
As the report rightly stressed, no single measure can solve the problem: regulation alone is not enough; and economic instruments alone are not enough. Voluntary measures, regulation, emissions trading and taxation all have a role to play. That is why, following Lord Marshall's report, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced, in March, our intention to introduce the climate change levy on the business use of energy.
My right hon. Friend stressed, as I do this evening, that the climate change levy is not a revenue-raising device: it will be revenue neutral for business as a whole. He also stressed that it is not an across-the-board tax, because energy-intensive sectors must have and will have different treatment. As we said at the time of the Budget, the levy will be designed in a way that protects the competitiveness of United Kingdom firms. The scale and rates of the climate change levy will, of course, be a matter for my right hon. Friend's Budget next year, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) indicated, we continue to consult with business and industry on the design of the levy—for example, on the treatment of renewables and combined heat and power, the appropriate treatment of electricity used in electrolysis, the best way of recycling the revenues and how to deliver extra help to small firms to become more energy efficient.
Following Lord Marshall's recommendation, we are negotiating with energy-intensive industries on the extent to which they can achieve further energy efficiency through binding agreements, in return for significant reductions in the levy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and his colleagues at his Department are leading those negotiations, and I am glad to say that they are proving to be positive and constructive. Next week, together with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry, I shall meet representatives of those sectors to hear directly from them. We have asked those industries to make proposals on agreements.
As I have repeatedly stressed, the figures quoted in the consultation document are purely illustrative: no decisions have yet been made on the detailed design of the levy. On all those matters we have an open mind. We are listening to industry, we are working with industry, and we shall make our decisions on the basis of what is good for the environment and what is good for competitiveness. It has been suggested by, among others, the right hon. Member for Wells that the climate change levy will destroy competitiveness. That is nonsense. When we published

our statement of intent on environmental taxation, we specifically stated that care must be taken to consider the implications for international competitiveness.
We will not sacrifice the competitiveness of our industry to our environmental goals—it would be madness to do so. Climate change knows no boundaries, so if industry were to move elsewhere and the greenhouse gases simply came from a different country, we would have damaged our jobs without protecting our children and grandchildren. However, nor will we sacrifice the environment to our competitiveness goals—it would be madness to do that, and industry is not asking us to do so. Industry is as committed as we are to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and to working with us to make the climate change levy work effectively.

Dr. Brand: The Economic Secretary refers to greenhouse gases, but does she recognise that the glasshouse industry makes an enormous contribution to reducing carbon dioxide? Will any thought be given to granting carbon dioxide reduction tax credits to those industries that need to use carbon dioxide to produce oxygen, as well as useful by-products such as tomatoes on the Isle of Wight?

Ms Hewitt: That is precisely the sort of issue that we are considering in the negotiations and consultation with industry.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the big question tonight is how the Opposition would fulfil their Kyoto obligations, given that, on the one hand, they are doing a U-turn on the fuel duty escalator on consumer consumption and, on the other hand, they will not support any sort of industrial levy, even one produced in consultation with industry? Would they not simply raise VAT on fuel? Is that not really what the debate is about?

Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—he makes the very point that I was about to come to. The Opposition's motion calls for
alternative ways of meeting Britain's international commitments".
It has been made clear that their true intention is to raise VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent., which policy was voted for by the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury and every right hon. and hon. Member whose name appears above the motion. That is the Conservatives' real purpose and policy. Every pensioner in this country knows that, under a Conservative Government, VAT on fuel would rise to 17.5 per cent.

Mr. Grieve: Will the Economic Secretary give way?

Ms Hewitt: No—I have been extremely generous in giving way.
In the modern economy, a cleaner environment and a more competitive industry go hand in hand. Getting the design of the climate change levy right is not only about minimising a possible competitive disadvantage, but about maximising the competitive advantage that comes from giving all our businesses effective incentives to develop and market the cleanest products and processes.

Mr. Peter Brooke: In the context of the argument that the


Economic Secretary is currently developing, why is our public sector research into energy-saving issues so comparatively low by international standards?

Ms Hewitt: I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I draw his attention to the fact that the energy technology support unit, which advises the Government on energy efficiency, includes world-class scientists whose expertise is renowned. They are playing an important part in the negotiations and they have stressed, both to Lord Marshall and to the Government, the scope for significant further savings, even within the energy-intensive sectors.
The development of trading schemes for emissions permits offers us a new competitive opportunity. We see emissions trading as part of the long-term solution to reducing emissions in the United Kingdom. That is why we are working closely with representatives from the Confederation of British Industry and from many companies on the design of a domestic emissions trading scheme. By developing such a scheme now, we can learn valuable lessons ahead of the international trading scheme envisaged under the Kyoto protocol, which we expect to be in place by 2008.
As I have said repeatedly, emissions trading is one of the ways in which energy-intensive sectors can choose to meet their targets. However, as Lord Marshall pointed out, emissions trading is unlikely ever to cover the majority of small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK or firms in the commercial sector, which together account for about 60 per cent. of the total greenhouse gas emissions from business. Therefore, emissions trading and the climate change levy are complementary measures, and the Select Committee on Trade and Industry specifically endorsed that conclusion.

Mr. Green: Will the Economic Secretary give way?

Ms Hewitt: No—I have been generous in taking interventions.
It is vital to protect the air we breathe. We are determined to rid our air of the pollution which endangers human health and the environment. From climate change to waste collection, from the ozone layer to the protection of birds, the search for sustainable development is unremitting. It will require a change in life style for all of us, as we learn to live fuller lives without jeopardising our children's future or their opportunities to use the world's resources.
That is the Conservative party's green manifesto, on which the right hon. Member for Wells and his right hon. and hon. Friends stood for election only two years ago. They stood on those principles two years ago, but mock them as motherhood and apple pie tonight. They have abandoned every principle in favour of the extremism and cynical opportunism to which we have become accustomed from the modern Conservative party. They were right two years ago and they are wrong now. It is my hope that, even now, they will admit their errors, abandon that extremism, and join with my right hon. and hon. Friends in voting for the Government's amendment.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: I draw the House's attention to the amendment standing in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, which sets out clearly the Liberal Democrats' views.
We broadly welcome the climate change levy that the Government have proposed—at least, we welcome the principle, but we have some reservations about the details. We welcome it because, as the Economic Secretary said, and as I believe the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) acknowledged, the problem of climate change and climate degeneration is a real one and one that has to be tackled both nationally and internationally with appropriate policies. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Government must set targets and implement policies that will tackle it. Listening to the right hon. Member for Wells, it was easy to conclude that the Conservatives have missed the point. It is clear that they oppose several aspects of the levy, but it is extremely unclear how they expect the United Kingdom to meet its treaty obligations if nothing is done with the climate levy.

Mr. Grieve: Let us put aside the motherhood and apple pie aspect of this issue. We can try to achieve the Kyoto targets principally because the transfer from coal to gas for electricity generation makes the targets feasible, even if we do nothing else. I am perfectly prepared to acknowledge that we must do much more, but that is the true situation.

Mr. Stunell: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that we should do nothing else to achieve the Kyoto targets or whether he is making another point.
Lord Marshall and the integrated pollution prevention and control directive have said that we must work towards achieving much tougher carbon reduction targets beyond 2010 both nationally and internationally. If we approach the current exercise as a way of just about reaching the target and we then plateau and make no further changes, we will be making a mistake that will ultimately damage the competitiveness of United Kingdom industry far more than any of the proposed changes that are currently on the table.
I draw the attention of the House to the comments of the Energy Saving Trust, which was established by the previous Conservative Government. It has pointed out that the assessed cost of climate change—or climate degeneration—is about 170 ecu per tonne of carbon emitted. It points out that the cost of the levy is lower than the cost of allowing climate change to continue unhindered. We welcome the measure because we believe that the target must be met and because we believe that there are opportunities, as well as problems, in responding to the change.
The report of the Trade and Industry Committee is somewhat disappointing in that it does not appear to recognise some of the opportunities that international competitors are already exploiting in developing new technologies and renewable energy sources. That is what is happening in the real world.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman referred to "new technologies". Is he suggesting that British Steel is not at the technological forefront of steel production? It has minimised the amounts of energy required to produce every tonne of steel.

Mr. Stunell: I welcome that intervention because it gives me the opportunity to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to our amendment. It is absolutely vital that,


when a sector is engaged in international trade, the measures put in place are appropriate and do not render United Kingdom industry uncompetitive. I was encouraged by the Minister's comments on that subject, but I draw her attention to the remarks of the Select Committee, which said that the Government appear to be including in that category almost every complainant and lobby group they can find. By including other sectors, one is in danger of diluting the necessary protection for those sectors genuinely engaged in international trade which might be at risk
As regards the use of energy by industry and commerce, although the major users consume a significant amount of energy, they constitute only 30 to 40 per cent. of total energy consumption. The majority of energy used in the industrial and commercial sectors is consumed not by major energy producers but by those running small workshops, by small businesses and the service sector—some 1.4 million businesses in this country, which are not major energy users by any stretch of the imagination.
Conservative Front-Bench Members have indulged in a certain amount of exaggeration and hype—I hesitate to suggest that such a thing would happen in this place. However, the price of gas for industrial and commercial firms has fallen by 46 per cent. in the past 10 years and the price of electricity has fallen by 22 per cent. Even if the levy were introduced at what I understand—if the Minister is to be taken seriously—are described as "illustrative rates", it would increase those prices by less than a third. There is a certain level of hysteria which we must keep under close control.

Mr. MacShane: If the index is 100 for United Kingdom electricity and energy prices for steel, what is the price of energy electricity in Germany, France or in any other major European competitor country?

Mr. Stunell: That is an interesting point. I draw the attention of the House to a logical conclusion of the Conservatives' argument: there should be a level playing field for energy taxation across the world. Six—perhaps seven—European Union countries are moving to introduce, or have introduced, either a carbon tax or an energy tax. I was prompted to intervene on the right hon. Member for Wells to ask whether he was, rather unusually, arguing in support of an EU-wide tax system in order to ensure that the United Kingdom does not lose its competitive advantage. However, the right hon. Gentleman drew back from that logical consequence.

Mr. Tim Loughton: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that all but one of the EU countries that is contemplating introducing, or has introduced, energy taxes have taxed carbon content? All but one of those countries have introduced large rebates for high-intensity users, including 100 per cent. rebates for steel producers in Belgium and Luxembourg. That is a very different kettle of fish from what is on offer here.

Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman points to the extremely important difference between an energy tax and a carbon tax. The Liberal Democrats believe that we should base our levy regime on the carbon content of fuel. The hon. Gentleman also points out that we should ensure that exemptions take account of the competitive environment—and I have made that point myself.
We welcome the levy in principle because it will reduce carbon emissions to some extent. It will help to slow down the rate of climate degradation and will perhaps direct investment into green technologies. However, we have some major reservations. Perhaps the most important of those is the one to which the hon. Gentleman referred: the levy does not discriminate between carbon-based and non-carbon-based fuels. That means that the environment for renewables will become increasingly difficult.
I was impressed to see a press notice from the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets—I suppose we should call it Ofgem—which stated that it will reduce the rate of the fossil fuel levy in England and Wales from 1 October and that
The reduction follows a slow-down in the expected rate of commissioning schemes approved at the last rate setting exercise.
In other words, renewables are already finding the going tough. For example, an aluminium smelter that would otherwise be able to draw on renewable fuel to bypass the levy will be unable to do so. The incentive to invest in renewables will be cut as much as the incentive to invest in carbon-based energy sources.
A second criticism is the levy's lack of transparency. The Inland Revenue has published a consultation document. We are surely not short of consultation documents. We could have a refuelling and recycling exercise with that paperwork alone. The Inland Revenue's document recommended against showing the energy levy on the bills that consumers receive, so they will not know that they are paying it. There are built into the proposals serious disincentives for the business sector to make changes that would improve efficiency.
Businesses face a situation in which their prices are down; in which the marginal, invisible cost of the levy will not appear on their bill; and in which the grant that will be recycled from that to provide an incentive to them to improve their efficiency is trivial. The tax will raise £1.75 billion, and only £50 million will be recycled to improve the efficiency of businesses. That is less than £40 per firm per year, which will never provide an incentive for small firms to reinvest to get rid of inefficient plant or to reduce heat loss from their buildings.
We have reservations also about the shotgun approach for major energy users. The debate has already covered that point. We strongly believe that adapting to the Kyoto targets, and beyond to the further reductions in carbon use, can and should be a job-promoting transition, not a job-destroying one.

Mr. Loughton: Why, in the Liberal Democrats' amendment to the motion, is there no mention of the hon. Gentleman's article in The Parliamentary Monitor, in which he says that the levy should be
introduced at a modest level, but with a very clear signal that it will be raised progressively year-on-year."?
Will he now confirm that the Liberal Democrats' policy is to have an energy tax escalator, as he stated in black and white a few days ago?

Mr. Stunell: My article does not appear in the amendment, first, because I am too modest, and secondly, because the amendment would have been too long. I am very happy to talk about the future direction in which the tax should go, although I am not sure that that is the point that the Conservatives are making. If you will permit me,


Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will take the argument a little further. If we have to tackle climate change not only by a one-step change by 2010, but by further steps in 2020, 2030 and 2040, it is absolutely clear that we will have to use market forces and fiscal measures to effect change more quickly.
I repeat that the amount of money being recycled to business to promote that efficiency is far too small. The Government should clarify how they will support investment by industry in increased efficiency and the promotion of renewable sources of energy. What moves are they prepared to fund to ensure that the switch to renewables takes place?
Finally, the House needs to remember that the debate is not about getting through to the next general election, or even reaching 2010 with our treaty obligations intact. It is about putting in place industrial, fiscal and market-friendly policies that will ensure that we cut pollution, reverse climate degradation, create jobs and wealth and improve the nation's quality of life. Sadly, the debate so far has produced, on the one side, a very timid response, and on the other, a complete and ostrich-like avoidance of the fundamental issues facing the House and the planet.

Mr. Peter Snape: It is always a pleasure to be lectured by the Liberal Democrats about what we should do. Motherhood and apple pie are second nature to them, and dispensing them is what they are here for. A good dollop of both does the House no harm. Personally I find the apple pie a bit sickening, although I have listened to such talk for many years.
At least the Government are consulting on their proposals for the climate change levy. It would be remiss of me not to point out that there are, to say the least, misgivings about the likely proposals among industrialists in the west midlands, part of which I represent. I shall come to the detail of those misgivings in a moment, but first I must say to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that she will have to tell us exactly what a revenue-neutral tax is. I have been in the House for a long time—too long, perhaps, in the opinion of some—but that is a creature that I have never yet come across in my 25 years here. It is a one-legged fish, a Loch Ness monster or a mythical figure.

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Snape: I cannot be interrupted while I am talking about mythical figures. The revenue-neutral tax is a very odd creature. The best brains in the Treasury have been putting together a tax that is revenue neutral, but the very words are contradictory. This is the first such tax that will have emerged from the Treasury if it proves to be truly revenue neutral

Mr. Grieve: On the assumption that taxation that is raised is not used to line Ministers' own pockets—one rather hopes, and I am prepared to accept, in the context of this House, that that does not happen—there is in fact no such thing as revenue-neutral taxation. As with any

other tax, the money will be taken from some people for the benefit of others. Some businesses will suffer and other businesses will get the benefit.

Mr. Snape: I suspect that this is the last time that the hon. Gentleman and I will agree this evening, but I am similarly inclined to think that revenue neutral is an unnatural description for any tax levied by the Treasury. If it turns out to be revenue neutral in the truest sense, it will be a first. I cannot speak for Ministers in the previous Government, but I am sure that Ministers in this Government will not seek to line their pockets in the manner that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
I want to ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary a couple of questions about the impact on companies such as British Steel of possible proposals in next year's Budget. I find the Conservative party's expressions of concern hypocritical—I speak collectively, Mr. Deputy Speaker—if only because those of us who were around in the 1980s saw the damage that the Conservatives' policies did to companies such as British Steel. We witnessed the decimation of the steel industry, particularly in the west midlands, south Wales and Scotland, which was regarded as being part of the Thatcherite pattern that was prevalent at the time. Conservative Members' present expressions of great concern strike me as a deathbed repentance.
Is it true, as British Steel says, that it is likely to come off worse than its rivals in the system of rebates under the climate change levy? The company's view is that the most that it can hope for is a 50 per cent. rebate, whereas elsewhere in Europe the rebates will be between 60 and 100 per cent. If British Steel is right, it is, as the company says, unfair that it has, by voluntary means, cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 6 per cent. since 1990, but those reductions will not be taken into account for the purposes of any rebate under the climate change levy. That would obviously render British Steel pretty uncompetitive compared with, for example, the Dutch and the Germans.
British Steel makes a genuine point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) implied in his intervention on the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), energy costs for British industry are already higher than for other European countries such as Holland and Germany. To load additional costs—if that is what is likely to happen—on British Steel is, to say the least, likely to be retty damaging to its competitiveness.
Of course, it is not only the bigger companies that are fearful of the likely impact of the climate change levy on their profitability. I have in my constituency a company called Sandwell Castings Ltd., which employs 200 people. It was part of a large group and would undoubtedly, like many similar companies, have gone to the wall had it remained so. It was bought out by its management some years ago, led by the then managing director, who is now sadly deceased, Mr. Alan Wilson, who worked very hard to turn around the company's prospects. Although he has died, the company still regards itself—understandably—as successful and is anxious to continue in business for years to come.
The sales and marketing director wrote to me last month about what he calls "an energy tax". It is all very well calling this measure a climate change levy, but it is a little like the poll tax being called the community charge. A climate change levy will be seen and described


as an energy tax and there will be no point in Ministers sending out directives instructing people to call it by its proper name. The sales and marketing director said:
We are now faced with an ENERGY TAX which I understand will add 12 per cent. on our melting costs. At this company we are using the very latest technology to melt aluminium but the imposition of this tax compromises the existence of companies such as ours and the 200 people we employ.
My request is simple, please make sure your colleagues, many of whom I believe have never been in a foundry, understand the implications of this tax because at this rate Mr. Blair will not have the credentials to sit at the G7"—
the G8—
table as an industrial nation.
Those are some of the fears expressed locally.
I wrote back to try to allay the fears of Mr. Green, the sales and marketing director. He sent me a further letter, breaking down the likely impact, in his opinion, of the climate change levy on his company. He envisages a total increase—obviously, melting aluminium is a particularly energy-intensive business—in costs of more than £72,000, and a 14.4 per cent. increase in fuel costs.
Against that we must set the proposed 0.5 per cent. reduction in the company's national insurance charges under the—I have to keep checking the phraseology—revenue-neutral tax, which amounts to a fraction over £17,000. The company believes that that will leave it worse off to the tune of £55,723. That is a precise figure for the imposition of a tax, the details of which have not yet been published, although I think that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will get my drift. These are the genuine concerns of a company that has been successful. It was saved from the brink of closure but now very much fears that its future will be imperiled unless the climate change levy is handled differently from the way it is rumoured.
I have one suggestion on the levy, however it is introduced. The House will know—as a former railwayman, I have bored hon. Members for many years with such sagas—how I think that the railway can better compete in various areas. Since rail generates less than 25 per cent. of the CO2 emissions produced by road transport, what about a rebate on the climate change levy proportional to the amount of additional freight that companies move by rail instead of by road? I hope that that constitutes at least one constructive suggestion in my speech which the Minister will be able to take on board.
As I said, I welcome the opportunity to express some of the fears of industry, both large and small, about the impact of the climate change levy on profitability. I know that it is the Government's avowed intention to ensure that no legislation has an adverse effect on the profitability of companies such as British Steel, or smaller ones, like Sandwell Castings Ltd. During the consultative period, I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will take on board the very genuine fears that exist. If she wants, I will send her a copy of the letters to which I have referred so that she can see for herself just how concerned such companies are about the future.
I have been in this House too long to make threats. I spent too long sitting on the Opposition Benches waiting for a Labour Government—nearly 20 years—to make threats, but if legislation appears in the way in which companies such as Sandwell Castings very much fear, I shall be unable to support my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in its introduction. That is how serious it is.
I appreciate the necessity to do something. I have said that Liberal Members—who, as usual, want to be all things to all people—are in favour of the climate change levy but not, please God, in their constituencies, affecting companies that they represent. I hope that I do not fall into the same category when I say that there is a problem throughout the west midlands, which was decimated by the policies of the previous Government. Any proposals that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor makes in his Budget should take account of the needs of British industry in general and west midlands industry in particular.

Mr. Tony Baldry: I am a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which yesterday published a unanimous report on the impact on industry of the climate change levy. The Register of Members' Interests shows that I have a declared interest in the cement and construction industries.
Given the scope of the levy, there is hardly anyone involved in United Kingdom industry who will not be affected by it. The Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union convenor at British Aluminium Extrusions in Banbury has written to me, reminding me that British Aluminium employs just over 400 people in Banbury. He says—remember that this is a union convenor:
The net extra cost of energy to this company will be £507,000"—"
just over half a million pounds—
(net of a £40,000 NIC Contribution reduction) per year at the full rate of the Levy … companies like ours in manufacturing will be net payers while service industries will benefit.
Even at the reduced rate allowed for companies under IPPC"—
integrated pollution prevention and control—
in exchange for a negotiated agreement to reduce energy consumption, the Levy will be a crippling extra burden. If the Government takes this money in extra taxation, our company will not be able to invest in the new equipment required to enable us to fulfil the requirements of a negotiated agreement.
The Levy will hinder our competitiveness against companies in Europe and beyond … Unless the workings of this Levy are changed fundamentally from those put forward in the Consultation Paper, the UK will lose jobs, the Treasury will lose the tax revenues from employment, the country's balance of payments will suffer and global warming will get worse and not better.
That is in an industry that the Economic Secretary only a short while ago said had produced a 65 per cent. increase in energy efficiency in recent years. Therefore, it is not surprising that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has found widespread concerns about the levy throughout the west midlands. Those concerns are obviously mirrored in industry throughout the United Kingdom, as became apparent in the evidence that the Select Committee received.
In June 1998, the UK accepted a legally binding 12.5 per cent. reduction target of greenhouse gas emissions as part of the European Union effort in reaching the Kyoto target. I do not believe that there is any dispute in any part of the House that the UK must meet its Kyoto target for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The question is how, not whether, greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced.
Shortly after the Government were elected, the Treasury issued a statement of intent on "environmental taxation", which said that the Treasury would seek to ensure, among


other things, that environmental taxes would have acceptable distributional impacts and take account of the implications of those taxes for the international competitiveness of UK business.
The climate change levy, as proposed, fails both those tests resoundingly. It fails to have an acceptable distributional impact—its distributional impact is obviously very unfair—and it clearly has a substantial adverse implication for the competitiveness of UK business.
Lord Marshall's task force concluded:
there probably is a role for a tax if businesses of all sizes and sectors are to contribute to improved energy efficiency and to help meet the UK emission targets".
There is no quarrel with his conclusion, but in terms of design, the task force concluded, among other things, that any levy should give special treatment to energy-intensive industries and recycle revenues in full to business, including by means of a fund geared to promote energy efficiency. Again, the proposed levy fails both those tests. It does not give special treatment to energy-intensive industries, and the revenues will not be recycled—indeed, the Treasury will take almost all the benefit of them for other purposes.
This is a levy on manufacturing industry that can only damage UK industrial competitiveness. A crude method of recycling revenues has been chosen that has nothing to do with energy efficiency. It simply transfers resources from manufacturing industry to the service and public sectors.
That is not surprising. The more the present proposals are examined, the clearer it becomes that the Treasury's principal policy objective is not to meet the Kyoto target, but to use the target as a means of raising money to cut national insurance contributions by 0.5 per cent. The Treasury clearly sees the levy as an opportunity for a significant reduction in employers' national insurance contributions in the next Budget. However, that will be at the expense of UK jobs, UK businesses and UK investment, particularly in manufacturing, where we cannot afford to lose industrial competitiveness.
In evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, the Electricity Association argued that the levy will, crazily, have the effect of
limiting the resource to pay for capital investment in energy efficiency.
Moreover, most of the industries that stand to be hardest hit because they are substantial users of electricity have over recent years, for sound commercial reasons, tried to ensure that they are as energy efficient as possible. An energy levy will not make them more energy efficient; it will simply be a tax on manufacturing industry.
I have in my constituency Kraft Jacobs Suchard, manufacturer of Maxwell House, which employs 1,200 people in Banbury. The firm writes:
In 1990 and 1993 substantial investment was made to install Combined Heat and Power (CHP) units, achieving a 27 per cent. saving in fossil fuel and a corresponding reduction of approximately 16,000 tonnes per year of CO2 emission.
Clobbering a company like Maxwell House will not make it more energy efficient; it will simply cause it to lose international competitiveness with other companies elsewhere in Europe.
It is therefore little surprise that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in a report published yesterday—the House should be reminded that that was a unanimous report of a Committee that has a substantial Labour majority—states:
We have been disturbed by the unprecedented scale of the reaction to the Government's proposal. We share the view expressed by several witnesses that, without appropriate modifications and exemptions, the Levy could prove a blunt instrument which does considerable damage to sectors of the British economy already struggling to maintain their profitability".
The report continues:
It is imperative that the Levy makes special provisions for energy intensive industries, such as to minimise any damage to their international competitiveness".
In opening the debate, the Economic Secretary sought to give the impression, as most Ministers do at this time, that concerns could be allayed because the Government were consulting. I am glad that the Government are consulting. One of the concerns of witnesses who appeared before the Select Committee was that in their view the Government had not consulted sufficiently. The test for the Government is not how the levy is perceived by industry now, but how it will be perceived at the time of the Chancellor's next Budget.
I hope that those on the Treasury Benches will take note of the Select Committee's findings, having heard all the evidence not just from manufacturing industry and others but from proponents of the levy, of the concern that it may do considerable damage to sectors of British industry. We said:
we are concerned about the investment implications of the uncertainty about the rates of Levy which will apply to many major UK manufacturing industries".
Although we found that
the Levy would be a powerful symbol, both domestically and internationally, of the UK's commitment to its Kyoto obligations, this should not detract from the need to ensure that the details of the Levy are fair to UK industry.
I very much hope that the Government in general and the Treasury in particular will give careful consideration to the Select Committee's report. It is a proportionate report based on evidence taken directly from representatives of those most concerned. It does not seek to make party political points and its conclusions are fairly based on the evidence.
The Government, of course, have sought to spin the levy on the basis that it will in some way be revenue neutral, that somehow it will be all swings and roundabouts. But even in this regard the Select Committee found that it
received the distinct impression that there was considerable confusion over the meaning of the phrase 'revenue neutral', and that some witnesses had wrongly assumed that it was intended to convey the impression that no firm or sector would lose out as a result of the introduction of the Levy.
I suspect that that is exactly what the Government did hope would be conveyed, and that was confirmed by the way in which the Economic Secretary opened the debate this evening. She sought to give the impression that the levy would in some way be revenue neutral, but as the Select Committee found, the phrase is not even an accurate description of the levy's effect on public finances since there will be a net saving in public expenditure due to the public sector's reduced liability for national insurance contributions. None of that should be surprising


because, in truth, the Treasury sees the levy not as a contribution to combating climate change but as a contribution to the Consolidated Fund.
However, the greatest irony of the Government's proposal is that it fails to discriminate between energy sources according to their carbon content. Under the proposal, electricity generated from renewables, nuclear fuel, coal and gas will all attract the same rate of levy, and that is somewhat bizarre. Clearly, a carbon tax that hits carbon-rich fuels will give energy users an incentive to switch to using fuel with a lower carbon content. But, again, there is inconsistency in the Government's proposals, as the Select Committee found. It said:
There is a tension between the Government's desire to protect the coal industry and the need to cut back carbon dioxide emissions which, at least partly, explains the reluctance to link the taxation of energy use to carbon content of fuels.
The simple fact is that the present proposal on the levy meets neither the public criteria set out by the Treasury for environmental taxes, nor those set out for an energy levy by Lord Marshall's task force. It comprehensively fails on all those criteria. The energy tax is just another stealth tax. It does little to help the environment but will inflict injury on UK manufacturing industry and will undermine the United Kingdom's international competitiveness.
The Government need to rethink the climate change levy comprehensively, and they must do so.

Mr. Bob Laxton: The climate change levy is noble in intent. If we do not take action now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, not only will future generations pay the price in the form of the consequent environmental damage but actions postponed will be necessarily more painful and burdensome than if we were to take them today.
Lord Marshall's report fashioned an economic instrument which sought to batten down the use of energy and its resultant carbon dioxide output. We must consider whether that instrument as currently fashioned is carefully calibrated or a bludgeon.
I suggest that a climate change levy that made British industry uncompetitive—and perhaps destroyed jobs and the capacity to create wealth—would not be very sensible; nor would it make any sense if it seriously distorted the British economy. Labour Members have traditionally championed the cause of manufacturing industry as the foundation of wealth creation, but I am concerned that this economic instrument may result in the large-scale transfer of resources from manufacturing to the public sector and, of course, the service sector.
Devising a system of incentives and, for that matter, disincentives that encouraged people to switch between fuels so that less polluting fuels are given a boost over more polluting fuels should not be beyond our capabilities. Lord Marshall has acknowledged that the economic instrument that he devised does not achieve that, and the Trade and Industry Committee, of which I am a member, was even confronted with evidence of some glaring anomalies in respect of the proposed levy. They could have had the perverse effect of encouraging the use of mineral oils over the less polluting liquid petroleum gas in rural areas and encouraging the switching of electricity generation from the relatively benign alternative of

gas-fired plant to the less friendly alternative of oil-fired plant. They are not marks of the well designed tax without undesirable side effects that Lord Marshall was commissioned to outline.
We need a careful rethink, not a simple, knee-jerk reaction, which is what we have seen from the Opposition. After all, if they had taken timely action when they were in government, we would not be facing such difficult choices. Other countries seem to have struck a better balance, and perhaps our Government should look more closely at some of the mechanisms that have been planned or put in place by them.

Mr. Snape: I have to tell my hon. Friend that he is being less than fair to Conservative Members. They not only signed up to Kyoto but applied the fuel tax escalator year on year. The fact that they are seeking to rat on that now is entirely predictable. At least they made an effort at that time, but in their present guise of a pretty ineffective Opposition, they deny their past

Mr. Laxton: I agree with my hon. Friend; Conservative Members give the appearance of being 40-faced on this issue.
I have received correspondence from a company that operates close to my constituency of Derby, North. Accordis is a Dutch-owned international company, and I well know that it is facing some difficult market conditions. Although it may not be too well known—certainly not in the Derby area—it took over from Courtaulds. I have no reason or ability to check its figures, but I shall repeat what it has said for the benefit of the House. It calculates that, at the highest rate, the levy would cost it nearly £7.4 million in the United Kingdom and nearly £3.2 million at the Spondon site. Clearly and understandably, there is concern that the Dutch owners may consider switching production outside the United Kingdom. I certainly hope that that is not the case, and the Government are consulting on that issue.
Hon. Members will see from the Select Committee report that we have called for the Government to work closely with industry to achieve energy efficiency gains, but changing behaviour does not necessarily have to be all stick and no carrot. Most of the negotiations between the Government and energy-intensive industries, as I understand them, have revolved around credits for anticipating future lower use of energy, but we have the opportunity to be more creative here.
The Government are consulting on this tax. I believe that we should consider three points. First, we should recognise moves towards the use of less polluting fuels as well as the use of less energy. We should remove entirely any perverse incentives implicit in this levy as currently designed that encourage the opposite.
Secondly, there should be recognition, by some means or other, of industries that have recently invested to improve their record, so that they are not disadvantaged compared with industries that have cynically delayed such investment. There was some suggestion of that in the evidence given to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.
Thirdly, there should be credits available for those who reduce their output of greenhouse gases, which are far more damaging than carbon dioxide in their environmental effects. The Iceland supermarket chain is


re-equipping its refrigeration with environmentally benign hydrocarbons and is moving away from hydrofluorocarbons which, when they leak, are more than 2,000 times more environmentally burdensome than carbon dioxide. Why not let Iceland and other supermarkets chains that are fearful of the levy see the upside as well as the down?
The Select Committee on Trade and Industry was anxious that the levy should not damage sectors of the economy that are already struggling to maintain their profitability. Surely the purpose of the levy should be to make life better for all of us, not appreciably worse. As with all sound Government policy, its effects should be proportionate and considered.

Mr. Tim Loughton: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I am a member of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, and I have had a longstanding interest in green taxes and carbon tax, but what is on offer today is not a carbon tax. Let us dispense with all the spin. The climate change levy is nothing more than an energy tax, and that is rightly the title of the debate. It is a tax by stealth, another red herring of a green tax, and a masterful piece of political presentation by the Government.
Worse still, the proposals are indiscriminate and unfocused. As Labour Members have said, no allowance is made for businesses that have already heavily invested in energy efficiency, or for more environmentally friendly energy such as combined heat and power and liquid petroleum gas. This is a downstream tax with no regard to the carbon content of the production method used. It prompts the question whether a genuine carbon tax was ruled out because of the powerful vested interests in the coal industry.
In energy-intensive industries, energy is a raw material for the production processes. It is integral to those industries, which will be hit particularly hard. Industries will be constrained from switching to more environmentally friendly gas by the Government's moratorium on gas-fired power stations. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury had the audacity to suggest that there is no moratorium on gas-fired power stations. I fought long and hard to get such a power station built in my constituency in the teeth of opposition from the Government, so she cannot tell me the opposite.
This tax represents a massive cross-subsidy from manufacturing to service industries. One of the biggest beneficiaries will be the Government, as a major employer in the service industry. Contrary to what the Economic Secretary said, the proposals contain no safeguards to preserve competitiveness, which is not the case in the many European countries that have differing forms of energy tax. Despite all the Government's reassurances about the rebate on national insurance, it is highly arbitrary, and we have had no undertakings on how long the NI rebate will last. Is it a one-off? Will energy tax rates change in the future, while the rates of NI rebate, if they remain, stay static? My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) referred to the landfill tax, and the fact that the Government have been raking in more cash without recycling any of it, contrary

to the previous Government's intention when they introduced the tax in the first place. Can we expect from the Government, as we patently can from the Liberal Democrats, an energy tax escalator? I am sure that that would be just as counterproductive to the environment as the road fuel duty escalator is proving to be.

Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend will recollect the criticism of the Conservatives' change in stance on the fuel escalator. However, is not it the case that the Labour Government have ratcheted up the fuel escalator vastly higher than the Conservatives ever did? Furthermore, is not evidence emerging that, however well intentioned the tax may have been, its impact on road haulage is minimal and its impact on competitiveness considerable?

Mr. Loughton: That point is well made. The Government have turned out to be past masters at escalating the escalators. Where companies and industries have no alternative, that must impact on their competitiveness, with resulting losses of jobs and profits to this country.
The Government set up the commission under Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge, but they seem to be ignoring his words. In his report, he said that any measures must be subject to careful design to protect the competitiveness of British industry and maximise the environmental benefit; any tax must be designed in a way that protects the competitiveness of British industry; the design of any tax should ensure that combined heat and power is not disadvantaged; and revenues should be recycled in full to business, with at least some of the revenues channelled into schemes aimed directly at promoting energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. On all counts, these proposals fail dismally, and they must be radically overhauled. That is despite the warm words from Treasury Ministers in support of Lord Marshall's report.
The Government have not thought this one through, as the words of the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry suggest. The figures do not add up, and this is another example of an unlevel playing field. The Government claim that the measure is intended to raise £1.75 billion, but, on the anticipated rates of 0.21p per kWh for coal and gas and 0.6p for electricity, it will raise over £2.1 billion if it is applied evenly to all companies.
It was a bold measure by the UK Government to sign up to a 12.5 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions as our target by 2010. It was particularly bold when one considers that the average for our European neighbours was just 8 per cent. It was an even bolder measure for the Government to claim a 20 per cent. reduction in their manifesto, which may turn out to have been foolhardy.
Of those six or seven European countries which have some form of energy tax, all but one reflect a carbon content—which this proposal does not. Every one grants special treatment to some parts of industry—as much as 100 per cent. relief for the steel manufacturers of Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Spain.
We have signed up to a 12.5 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gases, so that we will have 87.5 per cent of our 1990 emissions by 2010. However, some EU countries will have a licence to increase their greenhouse


gas emissions by 2010. The target for Greece will be 125 per cent. of its 1990 levels; for Portugal, 127 per cent.; and for Spain, 115 per cent. France will be level, at 100 per cent—that is, no reduction on its 1990 levels.

Mr. Grieve: Is it not the case that, in France, there is no belief in climate change and global warming at an official level?

Mr. Loughton: That is another story, and a much higher proportion of electricity comes from nuclear power in France—something that Labour Members would not countenance.
There is a licence to pollute more in the case of greenhouse gases for the countries to which I referred because they do not have the incentive to decrease. Yet we are being saddled with one of the heaviest decreases. We support that, but it should be acknowledged that the UK had one of the best records of decreasing carbon dioxide emissions between 1990 and 1995, under the Conservative Government. In many cases, therefore, our European partners have far greater leeway than we do. Nevertheless, the Government expect British industry to bear the full brunt, the effect of which on industry will be quite catastrophic.
As for end users, CO2 emissions from industry comprise about 27 per cent. of the overall target, whereas domestic emissions are 28 per cent., and road transport 22 per cent. However, by source, iron, steel and other industrial combustion and production processes account for only 17 per cent. of CO2 emissions, as against power stations—which are by far the largest source of such emissions—at 28 per cent.
As we have heard, the Department of Trade and Industry is having to update its 10-year-old figures on energy use by United Kingdom industry sector to identify which firms and plant are energy intensive. Therefore, the Government are largely struggling in the dark on which sectors will be hit hardest—yet, they want to bulldoze ahead with their proposals.
The energy tax has universally been given the cold shoulder by industry. The head of the Confederation of British Industry has said:
We do not believe that an energy tax levy is the most cost-effective way of encouraging business to make carbon reductions and are extremely concerned as to the likely impact of the current proposals on UK global competitiveness.
I entirely agree.
The most damning response has perhaps come from the British iron and steel industry, which exports 50 per cent. of its production to 200 different countries around the world. It is a fiercely competitive business. The chairman of British Steel said:
Making it impossible for us to operate our plants profitably is not a sensible policy. Forcing us to close plants here which will be replaced by inefficient plants in other parts of the world is the height of NIMBY nonsense.
There is no need for an energy tax. We can meet the Government's environmental goals without it.
Steel—even on the very rough figures provide by the Government—will be the biggest loser of all the industrial sectors. The fact is that £238 million in tax will be taken from the sector, but only £5 million will be rebated to it in national insurance. If we take the hints of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) that there will

be a generous 50 per cent. rebate of energy tax, we reach the figure of £119 million—which will still be more than 20 times what steel receives in national insurance rebate. Even his own figure of £55 million in energy tax would be more than 10 times what the industry will receive in rebate.
Not only the iron and steel industries but the chemicals industry will be hit by the tax. That industry will pay £175 million in tax, but receive only £25 million in national insurance rebate. Paper will pay £60 million, but get back £2.5 million. Cement will pay £40 million, to get back £600,000. Aluminium will pay £30 million, to get back £1.6 million—and so it goes, on and on. So much for revenue neutrality in any of those sectors.
Water will be another victim. It will spend £36 million, but receive back only £3 million in national insurance rebate. Surely that must impact on the industry's water quality improvement schemes.
The tax's effect on the steel industry will be ironic, as the industry has been one of the greatest proponents of improving energy efficiency. In the past 25 years, the amount of energy needed to produce a tonne of steel has decreased by 40 per cent., and the amount of CO2 involved in the process has been halved. British Steel has been a pioneer in producing lighter steels that are most cost-effective and efficient in car production, so that production requires less energy. British Steel, with other intensive users, has invested greatly in energy efficiency.
Other European Union countries ensure a zero net effect for their steel industry. In Germany, the energy tax is equivalent to only 4p per tonne of steel. The Government's proposals, implemented at the full rate, will be the equivalent of £6.70 per tonne of steel—whereas the average in Europe is only 40p.
After closures—because of sheer competitiveness and foreign competition—in the steel industry, British Steel was a big contributor in recycling jobs into new industries. With the tax, British Steel will of course lose out to foreign competitors. Even more damaging, however, is the fact that 40 per cent. of the world's steel is made in countries that are not covered by the Kyoto agreements.
Last year, for the first time, Europe became a net importer of steel. Last year, steel imports from non-Kyoto-covered countries increased by 113 per cent, and such imports into the United Kingdom alone increased by 60 per cent.
The Government do not seem to realise that, as of the end of June, 84 countries had signed up to Kyoto. However, the figure does not include countries such as South Korea, India, Turkey, South Africa, Hungary, Singapore or Taiwan, many of which have burgeoning iron and steel industries that are simply slavering at the lips to pick up business that will be lost by the United Kingdom if the Government's proposed energy tax is levied. China may, on the face of it, have signed up to Kyoto, but how many people here genuinely believe that it will stick to the strict limits? There will be a big redistribution of funds within the steel industry, from Wales and the north to London and the south-east, where the service industry jobs are.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said what a highly global industry the aluminium industry was, and described how it had introduced significant measures to reduce energy use since 1990.

Dr. Brian Iddon: Has the hon. Gentleman carried out an analysis of the effects of the tax proposed by Lord Marshall compared with those of a carbon tax? How would a carbon tax damage the steel industry less? That is what he claims, and his entire speech is based on such comparisons, so may we have the analysis, please?

Mr. Loughton: The iron and steel industry, like many other industries, has set up alternative forms of fuel, such as combined heat and power, and renewables. Under the blanket measures proposed, it would have no capacity to diversify into more environmentally friendly forms of energy. The hon. Gentleman, who served on the same Committee as me, knows that perfectly well.
I shall not go into detail about the aluminium industry. The tax will also affect material producers and the sugar industry, in particular British Sugar, which has been in the forefront of promoting investment in combined heat and power, on which it has spent a great deal of money. It now faces unfair competition—for example, from Germany, which has a 100 per cent. rebate for its domestic industry.
Retailing, too, will be affected. The British Retail Consortium said:
This tax is a blunt instrument. It will not meet the Government's targets under the Kyoto protocol to reduce carbon emissions, as it is targeted at energy consumption rather than carbon emissions. Neither will it encourage suppliers to switch to green sources of electricity.
I could also mention water, farming, food and drink, chemicals and many other sectors, including many smaller businesses. What the Government say about small businesses is another red herring in their proposals. The CBI report identifies many small industries that will lose considerably by the proposals. It gives the examples of a west midlands castings manufacturer that will pay £13,000 and get back only £230 in reduced national insurance contributions, and a Welsh mould maker that will pay £2,000 in tax and get back only £70. The tax will affect all areas of business and industry.
I shall not go into the details of the report by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, because my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) has told us about it in great detail.
The liquid petroleum gas industry is highly environmentally friendly, so it is ironic that the tax will worsen environmental conditions in the United Kingdom by encouraging LPG users to switch to more polluting, less efficient fuels. Calor estimates that the price of LPG will have to rise by 10 to 15 per cent., whereas hydrocarbon oils will not be affected because they are already subject to excise duty.
That is ironic because, in the Budget, the Government rightly made much play of reducing excise duty on road fuel gases by 29 per cent., recognising that they produce

less carbon dioxide, benzene, and sulphur dioxide, and fewer particulates. Yet now the industry concerned will be clobbered by the blunt instrument of the energy tax.
I could also talk about renewables, but my hon. Friends have already mentioned those.
The energy tax represents an enormous missed opportunity, especially as it means that we shall not be forging ahead with emission permit trading systems, as Lord Marshall suggested in his report. Such a system would exert much stricter control over CO2 emissions, with less cost to industry. The United States, Canada, Norway and Australia already have such systems. In the Sydney futures market, a facility has been set up for trading pollution emission permits, and that suggests enormous opportunities for the City of London, which could take on that challenge and set up such a system rapidly.
BP Amoco has its own internal emissions trading system, and PowerGen and British Gas have endorsed the idea. Trading permits between countries would go some way towards reducing the likelihood of distortions emerging in national economies as emissions are reduced, and costs and patterns of energy use change.
The Marshall report highlights the attractions of the scheme but, for some reason, the Government do not seem to want to take it on. Ironically, however, they have recognised the scheme's attractions by backing plans being drawn up by 24 large companies and six business organisations for an emissions trading system.
The Government have set up a steering committee under Rodney Chase, deputy chief executive of BP Amoco, which will report in October, but the proposals contain no agreement about whether companies taking part in the schemes will still face the full rigours of the energy tax. The Government's inaction represents an amazing lost opportunity to arrange the voluntary agreements that have been set up in the chemical and steel industries, and by energy users.
The Government compound that lost opportunity by sticking with the gas moratorium, even though the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) has admitted that the switch to gas and nuclear made a major contribution to the fall in CO2 emissions in the 1980s and 1990s.
It is also a scandal that a Government who have talked about hypothecation—as the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has done so proudly—should propose to recycle into energy efficiency programmes only £50 million, or less than 4 per cent. of the revenues from the tax. The amount recycled is much greater on the continent: for example, about 20 per cent. of the take from Austria's energy tax is recycled. The Under-Secretary told the Select Committee on Environmental Audit that the amount was as much as could be "squeezed" out the Treasury.
The recycled tax revenue could be put to so many uses, such as promoting home energy grants and tackling the problem of fuel poverty. It could also be used for house energy efficiency schemes, renewable subsidies, or even for handing our energy-saving light bulbs. All those represent more missed opportunities. Above all, however, the Government have missed an opportunity to introduce a genuine carbon tax and establish the UK at the forefront of the establishment of a new permit trading system.
The Government have a word to say to the following people: wise users of energy, who have voluntarily invested millions of pounds in more efficient and therefore more environmentally friendly energy use and who intend to continue that investment; those who have switched to cleaner forms of energy, such as combined heat and power or liquid petroleum gas; those who have made internal arrangements to help achieve Kyoto targets; those who have supported the Government's warm words on greenhouse gas emissions; those who operate in an industry facing intense competition from overseas companies not subject to such rigorous energy tax applications; and those who operate in countries that have not signed up to Kyoto. That word is, tough. Those people will have to bear the full brunt of the energy tax, or a reduced amount that is still woefully inadequate.
The watchword must be flexibility. Forcing industry into rigid frameworks will impact on costs and competitiveness. We need a mix of taxes and tax reliefs, of emissions permits trading, and a culture change by domestic and business users. The energy tax proposed by the Government is far too rigid. It is a blunt instrument, disguised in a green wrapper. Ultimately, the main beneficiary of the extra revenue to the Exchequer will be the Government who, as a major employer, will also benefit from the reduction in national insurance payments in service industries.
The revenue-neutral tag will ring hollow in the steel, chemical, paper, cement, aluminium industries, and in many others. One environmental economist has said that it will be close to useless, except as a revenue-raising instrument. As such, it is a major disappointment to those of us who want a comprehensive approach, involving genuine and practical environmental taxation and incentive measures.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I have an amazingly long speech, which I shall throw away to allow other hon. Members to contribute. However, I shall make a short declaration of interest, in that my constituency of Rotherham, in which steel has been made for some 300 years, has in it Europe's most advanced engineering steel plant. I am proud to say that I work closely with the industry, and with the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, the main union.
The debate will have served some purpose. We have heard some remarkably lightweight speeches about heavy industry from Conservative Members, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will take on board many of the comments that have been made.
To announce a tax and then discuss it for a full year is a remarkable fiscal innovation. No doubt my hon. Friend feels that she is getting all the pain and little of the gain, but I pay tribute to her and to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for their willingness to receive delegations and to speak either privately or formally. I am not necessarily the Treasury's biggest fan but they exemplify the new Labour listening Treasury, and I hope that some of the points made will be taken on board.
We need not take lessons from the Conservatives, whose main interest in manufacturing lies in manufacturing offshore tax havens to secure the flow of funds into the sleaze bag at central office. When in Government, the

Tories destroyed 150,000 jobs a year, and no Conservative Member from the asset companies and the financial sector could makes the same speeches in Rotherham as they give to the House.
My constituents were most offended by the article written by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) in The Parliamentary Monitor. He suggested that those concerned about the tax represented dinosaur interests, but manufacturing is sick and tired of being patronised by Liberal Democrats, Greens and the City boys from the Conservative party. Manufacturing is sick of being told that it represents the past; it is in fact the internationally traded competitive sector of our economy, and the men who work in manufacturing, from top management to new recruits, deserve much more time and attention than the Conservative party has given them over the past 20 years.
I find some of the language used in the debate disagreeable. There is an idea that we tax "bads" and give tax relief to "goods". We cannot moralise about taxation in that way. Manufacturing, particularly the steel sector, is full of good men who make good products. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) read us the British Steel handout, and I agree with it. If anything, it needs to be reinforced, because manufacturing trades competitively in international markets.
The biggest hit taken by the British steel sector in recent years will not come from the tax. The forced rise in the pound engineered by the previous Conservative Government during their last year in office put the pound up from DM2.17 in May 1996 to DM2.70 in May 1997. The pound has been stuck ever since at that rate, which ripped the guts out of British steel's profitability. The export-killing pound inherited by the Government has caused much damage. The utter hostility of the Conservatives to Europe reinforces it, although the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) is strongly pro-euro and pro-European and will doubtless set out minds at rest in his summing up of the debate.
I wish t hat our steel plants would paint themselves bright green. They are among the most ecologically minded sections of our heavy industry. They recycle 2 million cars a year and contribute massively to ensuring that British manufacturing is strongly committed to recycling. When compared with other sources of CO2 emissions, industry since 1991 has reduced its energy input by 12.5 per cent. By comparison, since 1980—roughly during the 18 years of Conservative rule—road transport increased by 50 per cent. The Conservatives failed to tackle the problems.
Europe has much more integrated policies, and the contempt and indifference of Conservative Governments towards action to reduce energy sources and CO2 emissions has left us with problems to clear up. When measured by the usage of end-users, the iron and steel sector's reduction per million tonnes of CO2 energy since 1988 is about 12.5 per cent. while that of road transport has risen by 50 per cent. There has been a 150 per cent. increase in the use of diesel fuel since 1985. Let us name the bads in our economy, and let us accept that the steel industry can reasonably be defined as a good.
I shall not go through the figures that I have already presented to the Treasury. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham listed some of them. Let us be clear that the Treasury has been a little fox in the chicken


coop and over-alarmed and over-excited the industry. The figures quoted are indicative or illustrative. I am not sure what that means, but I have to say bluntly to my hon. Friend the Minister that they have alarmed many in the manufacturing sector and especially the steel industry.
We do not know what the final figures will be. I appeal to the Government in the continuing negotiations—months of negotiations and consultation that lie ahead—to practice joined-up government and combine the Treasury with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Trade and Industry. Such a troika could work together so that when the final rate is set, and it will be set, it is set on the basis of consultation.
What needs to be done? I suggest a few simple measures. We need to focus on negotiated agreements based on reduction targets for different sectors. We need, not just revenue-neutral taxes, but fiscal neutrality. There is genuine concern about a cross-subsidy from the north to the south; from Labour heartlands to the asset management boys in the City; from steel to Whitehall Ministries. We need full transparency in pricing. That is a huge problem. We have the highest energy prices for industry. They have come down since 1990, but they started at such a high level as a result of the inefficient, racketeering way in which energy was privatised by the Conservative party.

Mr. Stunell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacShane: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to finish. We need to permit trading to encourage more flexible market responses to energy reduction.
We also need to look at the broader EU approach. It was fascinating to hear the manic Europhobes in the Conservative party speaking up for Europe and citing European examples of support for industry through fairer taxation.
We need to involve our social partners in reducing emissions. The trade union movement is deeply concerned about the matter. It does not have a vote in the House, but it has a voice and I believe that it will make it heard.
We also need far more research into CO2 reduction policies. Only a couple of years ago British Steel was making £2 billion profit and this year alone it has transferred £700 million to shareholders, including a cheque for £450 million that has gone across the Atlantic because only American investors have invested in British Steel. Money could be found for a private-public research institute to examine CO2 reduction policies. We need much stronger public engagement from the manufacturing sector, the Confederation of British Industry, and the United Kingdom Steel Association. They should enter into a dialogue with the green lobby and people campaigning on environmental reduction policies.
The way forward is partnership, consultation and dialogue, not dispute. I congratulate the Opposition parties on tabling the motion and the amendment. Although the language of some Tory Members has been adversarial, long-winded and pompous, this is part of the new listening, sharing, consulting Government whom the people of Britain voted in and will confirm in the Eddisbury by-election on Thursday.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: The speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) was an example of casuistry. He moved from one position to another in the course of a few minutes. It defies emulation and I shall not attempt to follow it.
This is a non-partisan issue. It is quite apparent that all major parties in the House believe in the motherhood and apple pie idea of trying to improve the environment and tackling global warming. The only difference between the Government and the Opposition is that the Opposition know that the reality of motherhood in government is that one often has sleepless nights and the apple pie gets spilt on the floor. On the other hand, the Liberal Democrats—not having experienced motherhood in government for about the past 60 years—have no sense of realism when it comes to policy decisions and the problems of implementation.
As a Member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I have always turned what I hope is a constructive eye and ear to all the ideas on tackling global warming and to the evidence that I have heard during the past two years. When the measure was first floated before the Committee, it seemed to have some attractive features. It might succeed in constructing a taxation system whereby, although people would be taxed more on their energy costs, they would immediately be offered compensation through the reduction of their national insurance charges. That would leave them with the superficial possibility of having reduced national insurance charges, while cutting down their electricity and energy consumption to make themselves more efficient, thereby improving their profits.
However, when one considers the detail of the ratio between the amount of energy used and the number of employees, the problem is apparent: the figures do not add up. The measure is a good idea, but when one examines it closely, it does not work. As a result of this fiscal adjustment, vast amounts of money will be siphoned off from manufacturing industries—heaven knows that they have had a rough enough time in a competitive world environment, whether under this or the previous Government—and will go to public service industries, which are not wealth producers in this country. The proposed measure simply does not add up.
I am quite happy to hear Ministers' constructive suggestions—now and in the future—as to how adjustments might be made or exemptions granted. However, I have considered the measure and spoken to those in my constituency who will be the worst affected. In Taplow, there is a paper-mill, which already suffers enormous economic difficulties; after my recent visit to the mill, I am satisfied that it will become completely uneconomic. However hard the business tries, it is a major energy consumer and it will become uneconomic if the proposals are implemented.
I do not want to take up too much of the House's time; I hope that there will be time for other hon. Members to speak. However, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury rightly asked Opposition Members for their proposals. The problem is that, although we all believe in motherhood and apple pie, when it comes down to the detail and the reality, none of us is able to produce valid proposals.
I have some suggestions that may be more important than the wholly counterproductive proposals for an energy tax. First, we should face the fact that there is an


exponential growth in the domestic use of energy—whether it be in our homes or the motor car. That is a major political challenge—because the individuals are voters. We must address that challenge.
In relation to the point about VAT on fuel, I am most conscious of the problem of fuel poverty and that we must address it. I accept that it is a long-running national scandal. However, the problem can be solved in ways other than merely reducing the VAT rate, and refusing to contemplate its increase for most of the population, who are able to afford to pay it. The reduction in VAT was a counterproductive move and the Conservative Government made a considerable mistake by taking that route.
The whole culture in this country needs to be re-examined. What is the point in having a policy of telling people that they should save energy domestically, when all they have to do is go out for a drive to see that motorway lighting provided by the Government and road lighting generally provided by local authorities is in continuous growth, apparently for safety reasons? That contrasts with policies in Scandinavia: in Denmark, I noted with interest that, to make the point of energy saving, every second street light in Copenhagen is switched off. Those might be small things, but they add up. What is necessary energy use and what is unnecessary—if not decorative, something that we can do without?
Until we start to address those questions, we will never set in motion the culture change that will ultimately sweep through the whole issue of global warming: just as people will change their habits domestically, so they will insist that every possible cost-saving and energy-saving device should be used in their business environment. Unfortunately, we are failing to do that. I have to tell the Financial Secretary that the climate change levy—no doubt, a well-intentioned idea when it came off the drawing board—is in danger of becoming a nightmare. I hope that the Government will think again and start to consider carefully ways in which we can tackle an extremely difficult issue in a more constructive way.
Destroying our wealth-producing industries will not stop global warming. As the Government themselves have pointed out, it is our nation's ability to produce wealth that enables us to find the funds to introduce the measures we need to tackle global warming.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) for allowing me time to say a few words in this debate.
I am pleased that the Government have taken strong action to curb the problem of global warming in signing up, not to a 12.5 per cent., but to a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. In that context and to achieve that target, energy taxes have a legitimate role to play.
Since the oil price collapse in 1986, energy prices have been relatively low in historical terms. Since 1990, electricity prices have dropped by 22 per cent. and gas prices by 46 per cent. It is against that background that the climate change is to be introduced, and the indicative figures that I have seen for the tax are a good deal lower than those price decreases.
The clear intention is that the levy should be revenue neutral, which means that there will be both those who gain and those who lose in the national insurance contribution cuts. Not surprisingly, in tonight's debate, attention has focused on the losers, but in the economy as a whole the result will be a gain of 14,000 jobs and there will be some protection for energy-intensive industries.
The total revenue to be raised from the tax is £1.75 billion and the amount of carbon emissions saved will be 1.5 million tonnes. That is £1,000 per tonne of carbon saved, so the tax is rather inefficient. Although I have always supported carbon taxes and the general concept of an energy tax, £1,000 for every tonne of carbon saved is a high price to pay.
Think of fuel prices: the world price for coal is about £30 a tonne and energy prices generally are well below £100 a tonne, so to pay £1,000 for a company to save one tonne of carbon is a high price. I should prefer the £1.75 billion to be reinvested in conservation measures and renewables. In that way, far more than 1.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions could be saved.
I am pleased that there is to be a limited opportunity for emissions trading. I would like to see emissions trading in the form of carbon absorption. Part of the revenue could have been used to provide an incentive to plant woodlands because that will be an important way of limiting carbon emissions internationally.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I begin by reminding the House of my interests—which are listed in the Register of Members' interests—as a director of SGE, and an adviser to NatWest Global Financial Markets and the Chartered Institute of Taxation. As far as I can surmise, those three organisations are likely to be net beneficiaries of the Government's proposal. However, as hon. Members will learn in a moment, that does not influence my views about the Government's plans in any way.
Before I turn to the substance of the matter, I should comment about something that must be more important even than this proposal. There is continual evidence of the attitude of Labour Front-Bench Members towards this place, which can be charitably described as one of levity. The Economic Secretary, who introduced the debate, told the House that she had something better to do than remain in the Chamber at the end of the debate. Unless she had received a summons from Buckingham palace, whatever activity she preferred to staying here to listen to a debate that she had launched was more important than her duties in the House. There is something seriously wrong with the hon. Lady's priorities.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I had hoped that he would show rather more courtesy. At the beginning of the debate, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary explained that she had unbreakable commitments and, therefore, would be unable to stay for the winding-up speeches. She also explained that I would respond to the debate. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would receive her remarks in the spirit in which they were intended.

Mr. Davies: I am afraid that the Minister makes the matter even worse because she proves that the hon. Lady's


conduct was not just the aberration of an individual, but is endorsed by the entire Front-Bench team. No commitment should be unbreakable when compared with Ministers' accountability to the House. Ministers should treat this place with courtesy. Parliamentary democracy can survive only on that basis. If the Economic Secretary does not know that, she had better rethink her priorities.
This was a very bad debate for the Government because, once again, not a single Labour Back Bencher had a good word to say about their policies. We even had the amusing spectacle—

Mr. MacShane: rose—

Mr. Davies: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall deal with the point that I know he wants to make. We witnessed the amusing spectacle of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who is normally so meticulous—I have tried to use a flattering term—in supporting whatever happens to be the ministerial line of the moment, agonising publicly about this subject. He spoke of the steel industry's alarm at the proposed levy and said that the trade union movement was deeply concerned. His speech was very revealing from that point of view. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) actually suggested that he might not be able to support the Government in the Division Lobby on the levy. Similar reservations were expressed by the hon. Members for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) and for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams).
We heard a powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and a well informed speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry). He is a member of the Trade and Industry Select Committee, and he pointed out that the Government's proposals do not meet the criteria set out in the Treasury's initial document—which is a pretty damning revelation. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) demonstrated a masterly grasp of the detail of the subject.
The first thing that must be said about the Government's proposals is that they reflect the incompetence that is rapidly becoming the hallmark of this Government. The first prerequisite of a competent policy is that it should be rational. It should reward, and thereby encourage, desired behaviour and sanction undesired behaviour. This policy fails that ultimate test of competence. The energy tax proposals do not reward those who have made efforts to reduce the carbon content in the energy used in their processes.
In the energy-intensive sector, the tax will have a particularly brutal effect, because companies in that sector that have made a great effort—as many of them have—to reduce their energy use will now find themselves disadvantaged. Competitors who have made no such effort and who therefore have greater scope for reducing energy use will have an advantage in the negotiations for a rebate on the levy which will now be held with the Government. That is unjust, but is also irrational and utterly incompetent.
Even more seriously, the proposals provide absolutely no incentive for industry or commerce to switch to sources of energy that produce less carbon. The opposite is the case because, with typical inconsistency and, once again, incompetence, the Government have introduced what is, for all practical intents and purposes, a moratorium on the building of new combined cycle gas-fired power stations which generate about a quarter of the carbon that coal-fired stations produce for a given kilowatt of generation. So it is impossible for firms to switch to a form of hydrocarbon generation that produces less carbon even if they want to do so. The Government's proposals offer no reward for industries that decide to move in that direction.
Most extraordinary of all, there is absolutely no recognition of those who might want to invest in energy that does not generate any carbon at all. That is a missed opportunity. The Government had an opportunity to change the economics of electricity generation in this country to create a new basis for people to invest in renewables or nuclear generation, which does not emit any carbon at all. Not only has that opportunity been missed, but people who invest in such energy sources or are prepared to sign contracts to use those sources receive no recognition in the proposals. They will be made to look like fools if they follow that line. The whole basis on which we might have addressed the need to reduce global warming has been obliterated before we have started. That is massive incompetence.
The charge does not even end with incompetence because the country now faces a set of extremely destructive policies. They are set out in the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which was published yesterday. That report is very clear. It said that
the Teesside Chemical Initiative estimated that, if applied in full, the Levy would cost Teesside chemical firms £37.3 million per annum, causing up to 1,000 job losses".
The report also said that the Energy Intensive Users Group estimated that even if there is a 50 per cent. reduction in the levy, as many as 28,000 jobs might be lost in energy-intensive firms. The report went on to say that
the Aluminium Federation estimated that the aluminium industry would incur a net cost of £38 million as a result of the Levy, leading to the closure of four primary aluminium smelters and 4,000 job losses.
The Country Landowners Association has said:
Intensive horticultural operations, which are major contributors to the balance of payments, may be put out of business.
Of course, those businesses do not, on a net basis, emit any carbon dioxide. The prospect of damage goes on.
The Government's incompetence will lead to the loss of people's employment, the shattering of individuals' prospects and the displacement of industry. And that is not the end of it. The proposals are also fraudulent. They have been sold to the House and the public as revenue neutral, but as we have discovered during the debate, they are not revenue neutral for individual firms, sectors or regions. They represent an enormous levy on the north and the midlands in favour of the south-east.
Most of all, the proposal is not revenue neutral because the public sector will be a net gainer. I understand that local authorities alone will gain some £250 million net. What is a levy that is so recycled that the public sector is


a net gainer and the private sector a net loser? The answer is, by definition, a tax. Here we have another way of taking money out of the private sector and giving it surreptitiously to the public sector. We have uncovered yet one more stealth tax in the Labour Government's catalogue. They ought to be ashamed of the policy, and even more ashamed of the way in which they are trying to disguise it from the British public and from Parliament, which they treat with such derision.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): That was an extraordinary speech by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). It was yet another example of the understated way in which he makes his case. He would have better spent his time being present for the entire debate, as I have been, rather than just making his ridiculous remarks at the end of it. In the short time remaining to me, I shall deal, as he should have done, with the remarks that have been made on both sides of the House. I think that that is what the House expects from a winding-up speech.
The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said that heavy industry already had an incentive to be energy efficient. As Lord Marshall noted, the best evidence available of possible achievements comes from the energy technology support unit. Its work suggests that there is scope for further improvements in energy efficiency across industry.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on these issues, said that, according to the consultative document, the levy will not be shown on bills. That is clearly not so. We are consulting on several design issues, including whether to show the levy on bills. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) rightly said, the Liberal Democrats must decide once and for all whether they are in favour of this measure. Once again, they talk big on the environment, but when it comes to supporting constructive Government proposals, they are found wanting.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove asked why renewables could not be exempt. As he will know if he has considered the matter carefully, we have not ruled that out. We have proposed that some of the revenue raised will be used to provide additional support for renewable sources of energy. He said that the £50 million for energy efficiency was not enough, yet the present budget for the energy efficiency best practice programme is about £15 million a year. We are, therefore, proposing a considerable step up, and it would be nice if, for once, the hon. Gentleman gave us some credit for it.

Mr. Stunell: Will the Financial Secretary give way?

Mrs. Roche: No, I do not have time.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East asked me to take into account the situation in his constituency. We shall of course consider in great detail what he says to us. If he will send me the details of the

example that he gave, we will consider them carefully. He asked what revenue neutral means. We have said right from the beginning that the levy will entail no increase in the burden of tax on business as a whole.
The right hon. Member for Wells mentioned the 50 per cent. figure, but did not say that it is purely illustrative. He paid no heed to that whatever.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There is one figure that is not illustrative, because it is in the Government arithmetic, which is that this tax will raise £1.75 billion a year. If the Minister starts making concessions, as she is now hinting, or if other companies exempt themselves from the tax by moving abroad, how will she obtain that extra revenue from other companies?

Mrs. Roche: The right hon. Gentleman has a cheek. We have set out—

Mr. Francis Maude: She has no idea what the answer is.

Mrs. Roche: The right hon. Gentleman asked a question and, if the shadow Chancellor will give me the opportunity instead of heckling from a sedentary position, I will give him the reply. We set out the figure. We have made it absolutely clear right from the start that we would consult. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) has said, it is unprecedented for a Government to allow that period of consultation, and we shall ensure that it takes place.
I tell my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East that we would be happy to receive any suggestions for the design of the levy that would increase its environmental effectiveness while protecting competitiveness. [Interruption.] The Members on the Opposition Front Bench continue to chatter throughout this. I would have thought that they would have been interested in hearing about the competitiveness of British industry, but they obviously are not.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, mentioned the cut in national insurance. I remind him that it was the Government of whom he was a member who introduced a cut in NICs, when introducing the landfill tax in 1996. Yet again, the Opposition are suffering from collective amnesia.
The hon. Member for Banbury also said that the levy was badly targeted and inefficient. The design very closely follows Lord Marshall's recommendations and, as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has said, many other countries believe that carbon or energy taxes have a role to play in helping to meet the climate change targets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) mentioned mineral oils. Mineral oils are subject to excise duty, and the Budget announced phased increases in gas oil and fuel oil duties.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) drew attention to what is happening with regard to the electricity pool. We shall take the review of the electricity pool trading arrangements into account in designing the levy, and the Government, unlike the previous Conservative Government, will clean up the situation that was left for us and deal with it.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) seemed to be saying, "Yes, something needs to be done, but what can we do?" He seemed to suggest that we return to the discredited system of the Conservatives' imposition of VAT on fuel. We know what they did and what it did to fuel poverty—and the hon. Gentleman wants to return to that. The Conservatives generally are still wedded to that.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) rightly mentioned energy incentives. We shall look at those.
In Conservative Members, we see a party that, when it was in government, spoke big on the environment, but did nothing about it, and which turns its views in opposition. The Leader of the Opposition said:
We must protect our environment for future generations and strike a balance with the needs of the economy and society's demands for goods and services".
Now the Conservatives change their mind. Conservative Members all stood on a manifesto that said:
we will continue to use the tax system and other incentives to encourage the use of vehicles and fuel which do not pollute the environment. And, we will continue to explore policies based on the principle of polluter pays".
It is rich. They say one thing to the country when they are seeking votes and another in the House.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 346.

Division No. 261]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Amess, David
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Day, Stephen


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan, Alan


Baldry, Tony
Duncan Smith, Iain


Beggs, Roy
Evans, Nigel


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Faber, David


Bercow, John
Fabricant, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fallon, Michael


Blunt, Crispin
Filght, Howard


Body, Sir Richard
Forsythe, Clifford


Boswell, Tim
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fox, Dr Liam


Brazier, Julian
Fraser, Christopher


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gale, Roger


Browning, Mrs Angela
Garnier, Edward


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gibb, Nick


Burns, Simon
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa



Gray, James


Chope, Christopher
Green, Damian


Clappison, James
Greenway, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grieve, Dominic



Gummer, Rt Hon John


Collins, Tim
Hague, Rt Hon William


Colvin, Michael
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Cran, James
Hammond, Philip


Curry, Rt Hon David
Hawkins, Nick





Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Robathan, Andrew


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Horam, John
St Aubyn, Nick


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hunter, Andrew
Shepherd, Richard


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Jenkin, Bernard
Soames, Nicholas


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Spelman, Mrs Caroline



Spring, Richard


Key, Robert
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Steen, Anthony


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Streeter, Gary


Lansley, Andrew
Swayne, Desmond


Leigh, Edward
Syms, Robert


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lidington, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Loughton, Tim
Townend, John


Luff, Peter
Tredinnick, David


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Trend, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tyrie, Andrew


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Viggers, Peter


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Walter, Robert


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Wardle, Charles



Waterson, Nigel


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wells, Bowen


Malins, Humfrey
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Maples, John
Whittingdale, John


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


May, Mrs Theresa
Willetts, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Wilshire, David


Norman, Archie
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ottaway, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Page, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Paice, James



Pickles, Eric
Tellers for the Ayes:


Randall, John
Mrs. Jacqui Lait and


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Browne, Desmond


Ainger, Nick
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Buck, Ms Karen


Alexander, Douglas
Burden, Richard


Allan, Richard
Burgon, Colin


Allen, Graham
Butler, Mrs Christine


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Atkins, Charlotte
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Baker, Norman
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ballard, Jackie
Cann, Jamie


Banks, Tony
Caplin, Ivor


Barron, Kevin
Casale, Roger


Battle, John
Caton, Martin


Bayley, Hugh
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Beard, Nigel
Chaytor, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Chidgey, David


Begg, Miss Anne
Chisholm, Malcolm


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clapham, Michael


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Benton, Joe
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Best, Harold
Clelland, David


Betts, Clive
Clwyd, Ann


Blackman, Liz
Coffey, Ms Ann


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cohen, Harry


Boateng, Paul
Coleman, Iain


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Colman, Tony


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Connarty, Michael


Brake, Tom
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Brand, Dr Peter
Corbett, Robin


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Corbyn, Jeremy






Cousins, Jim
Hesford, Stephen


Cox, Tom
Hill, Keith


Cranston, Ross
Hinchliffe, David


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hoey, Kate


Cummings, John
Hood, Jimmy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Dalyell, Tam
Howells, Dr Kim


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hoyle, Lindsay


Darvill, Keith
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hutton, John


Davidson, Ian
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Illsley, Eric


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jenkins, Brian


Dismore, Andrew
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Donohoe, Brian H



Doran, Frank
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Drew, David
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth



Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Efford, Clive
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Keeble, Ms Sally


Ennis, Jeff
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Etherington, Bill
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Fearn, Ronnie
Keetch, Paul


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kemp, Fraser


Fisher, Mark
Khabra, Piara S


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kidney, David


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kilfoyle, Peter


Flint, Caroline
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Flynn, Paul
Kirkwood, Archy


Follett, Barbara
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Foster, Don (Bath)
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lepper, David


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Leslie, Christopher


Foulkes, George
Levitt, Tom


Fyfe, Maria
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Galloway, George
Linton, Martin


Gapes, Mike
Lock, David


Gardiner, Barry
McAllion, John


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McAvoy, Thomas


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McCabe, Steve


Gerrard, Neil
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gibson, Dr Ian
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Macdonald, Calum


Godsiff, Roger
McDonnell, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McIsaac, Shona


Gorrie, Donald
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McNamara, Kevin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McNulty, Tony


Grocott, Bruce
MacShane, Denis


Grogan, John
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gunnell, John
McWalter, Tony


Hain, Peter
McWilliam, John


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mallaber, Judy


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hancock, Mike
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Harris, Dr Evan
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Harvey, Nick
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Martlew, Eric


Healey, John
Meale, Alan


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Merron, Gillian


Heppell, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)





Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Singh, Marsha


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Moore, Michael
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Morley, Elliot
Snape, Peter


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Soley, Clive


Mudie, George
Spellar, John


Mullin, Chris
Squire, Ms Rachel


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stevenson, George


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Norris, Dan
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Oaten, Mark
Stinchcombe, Paul


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stott, Roger


O'Hara, Eddie
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Olner, Bill
Stringer, Graham


Öpik, Lembit
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Stunell, Andrew


Palmer, Dr Nick
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pearson, Ian
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pendry, Tom



Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pike, Peter L
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Plaskitt, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pollard, Kerry
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pond, Chris
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pope, Greg
Timms, Stephen


Pound, Stephen
Tipping, Paddy


Powell, Sir Raymond
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Touhig, Don


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Trickett, Jon


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Primarolo Dawn
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prosser Gwyn
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Purchase, Ken
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Tyler, Paul


Rapson, Syd
Vaz Keith


Raynsford, Nick
Vis, Dr Rudi


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Walley, Ms Joan


Rendel, David
Ward, Ms Claire


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Wareing, Robert N



Webb, Steve



White, Brian


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wicks, Malcolm


Rooker, Jeff
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rooney, Terry



Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Roy, Frank
Willis, Phil


Ruane, Chris
Wills, Michael


Ruddock, Joan
Wilson, Brian


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Winnick, David


Salter, Martin
Wise, Audrey


Sanders, Adrian
Worthington, Tony


Sarwar, Mohammad
Wray, James


Savidge, Malcolm
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sawford, Phil
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wyatt, Derek


Sheerman, Barry



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Shipley, Ms Debra
Mr. David Hanson and


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Jane Kennedy.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 162.

Division No. 262]
[10.13 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Davidson, Ian


Ainger, Nick
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Alexander, Douglas
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Allen, Graham
Dean, Mrs Janet


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Dismore, Andrew


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Donohoe, Brian H


Ashton, Joe
Doran, Frank


Atkins, Charlotte
Dowd, Jim


Banks, Tony
Drew, David


Barron, Kevin
Drown, Ms Julia


Battle, John
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bayley, Hugh
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Beard, Nigel
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Edwards, Huw


Begg, Miss Anne
Efford, Clive


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Ennis, Jeff


Bennett, Andrew F
Etherington, Bill


Benton, Joe
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Best, Harold
Fisher, Mark


Betts, Clive
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Flint, Caroline


Boateng, Paul
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Follett, Barbara


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Browne, Desmond
Foulkes, George


Buck, Ms Karen
Fyfe, Maria


Burden, Richard
Galloway, George


Burgon, Colin
Gapes, Mike


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gardiner, Barry


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Godsiff, Roger


Cann, Jamie
Golding, Mrs Llin


Caplin, Ivor
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Casale, Roger
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chaytor, David
Grocott, Bruce


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grogan, John


Clapham, Michael
Gunnell, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clelland, David
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clwyd, Ann
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coffey, Ms Ann
Healey, John


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coleman, Iain
Heppell, John


Colman, Tony
Hesford, Stephen


Connarty, Michael
Hill, Keith


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Corbett, Robin
Hoey, Kate


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hood, Jimmy


Cousins, Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cox, Tom
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cranston, Ross
Howells, Dr Kim


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Illsley, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darvill, Keith
Jenkins, Brian





Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatflield)
Pearson, Ian



Pendry, Tom


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Pollard, Kerry



Pond, Chris


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kemp, Fraser
Prosser, Gwyn


Khabra, Piara S
Purchase, Ken


Kidney, David
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rapson, Syd


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Raynsford, Nick


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Laxton, Bob



Lepper, David
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Leslie, Christopher
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Levitt, Tom
Rooker, Jeff


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rooney, Terry


Linton, Martin
Rowlands, Ted


Lock, David
Roy, Frank


McAllion, John
Ruane, Chris


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Joan


McCabe, Steve
Salter, Martin


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sarwar, Mohammad


McDonagh, Siobhain
Savidge, Malcolm


Macdonald, Calum
Sawford, Phil


McDonnell, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sheerman, Barry


McIsaac, Shona
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Singh, Marsha


McNamara, Kevin
Skinner, Dennis


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McWilliam, John
Snape, Peter


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Soley, Clive


Mallaber, Judy
Spellar, John


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stevenson, George


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Martlew, Eric
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Meale, Alan
Stinchcombe, Paul


Merron, Gillian
Stoate, Dr Howard


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stott, Roger


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mitchell, Austin
Stringer, Graham


Moffatt, Laura
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Moran, Ms Margaret
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)



Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Mudie, George
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mullin, Chris
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Timms, Stephen


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Tipping, Paddy


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Touhig, Don


Norris, Dan
Trickett, Jon


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


O'Hara, Eddie
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Olner, Bill
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Vaz, Keith


Palmer, Dr Nick
Vis, Dr Rudi






Walley, Ms Joan
Winnick, David


Ward, Ms Claire
Wise, Audrey


Wareing, Robert N
Worthington, Tony


White, Brian
Wray, James


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Wicks, Malcolm
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Wyatt, Derek


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wills, Michael
Mr. David Hanson and


Wilson, Brian
Jane Kennedy.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Allan, Richard
Gorrie, Donald


Amess, David
Gray, James


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Green, Damian


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Greenway, John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Grieve, Dominic


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Baker, Norman
Hague, Rt Hon William


Baldry, Tony
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Ballard, Jackie
Hammond, Philip


Beggs, Roy
Hancock, Mike


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Harris, Dr Evan


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Harvey, Nick


Bercow, John
Hawkins, Nick


Beresford, Sir Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Blunt, Crispin
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hunter, Andrew


Brake, Tom
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Brand, Dr Peter
Jenkin, Bernard


Brazier, Julian
Keetch, Paul


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Key, Robert


Browning, Mrs Angela
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Kirkwood, Archy


Burnett, John
Lansley, Andrew


Burns, Simon
Leigh, Edward


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)



Lidington, David


Chidgey, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Chope, Christopher
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Clappison, James
Loughton, Tim


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushctiffe)
Luff, Peter



Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Collins, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Colvin, Michael
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Cran, James
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Curry, Rt Hon David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Malins, Humfrey


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Maples, John


Day, Stephen
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Donaldson, Jeffrey
May, Mrs Theresa


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Duncan, Alan
Moore, Michael


Duncan Smith, Iain
Nicholls, Patrick


Evans, Nigel
Norman, Archie


Faber, David
Oaten, Mark


Fabricant, Michael
Öpik, Lembit


Fallon, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Fearn, Ronnie
Page, Richard


Right, Howard
Paice, James


Forsythe, Clifford
Pickles, Eric


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Randall, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Rendel, David


Fraser, Christopher
Robathan, Andrew


Gale, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Garnier, Edward
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
St Aubyn, Nick


Gibb, Nick
Sanders, Adrian


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Sayeed, Jonathan





Shepherd, Richard
Tyler, Paul


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Tyrie, Andrew


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Viggers, Peter


Soames, Nicholas
Walter, Robert


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Wardle, Charles


Spring, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Webb, Steve


Steen, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Streeter, Gary
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Stunell, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Swayne, Desmond
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Syms, Robert
Wilkinson, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Willetts, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Willis, Phil


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tonge, Dr Jenny



Townend, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Tredinnick, David
Mrs. Jacqui Lait and


Trend, Michael
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House notes that there is now compelling evidence that climate change needs to be tackled, that there is therefore a need for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that the United Kingdom has a legally-binding target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions set under the Kyoto Protocol; welcomes the recommendations of Lord Marshall on the case for a climate change levy; further welcomes the measures taken by the Government to help British business, including cutting corporation tax rates to their lowest ever level; welcomes the Government's decision to pre-announce the introduction of the climate change levy by two years to give time for further consultation on its design; and supports the Government's determination to work with industry and other parties to ensure that it meets its environmental objectives whilst safeguarding Britain's international competitiveness.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

PROPOSAL TO EXTEND THE WORKING TIME DIRECTIVE TO EXCLUDED SECTORS

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13526/98, the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 18th May 1999 and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 21st June 1999, all on the extension of the Working Time Directive to excluded sectors; supports the Government's view that the proposal agreed by Member States at the Social Affairs Council on 25th May will ensure that workers who were previously excluded will now enjoy the benefit of working time protection; and agrees that all workers should have the right to minimum standards in the workplace and that the extension of the working time directive to the excluded sectors supports the Government's aim of promoting family friendly employment.—[Mr. Dowd.]

The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 156.

Division No. 263]
[10.25 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Allen, Graham


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)


Ainger, Nick
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ashton, Joe


Alexander, Douglas
Atkins, Charlotte






Banks, Tony
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Barron, Kevin
Edwards, Huw


Battle, John
Efford, Clive


Bayley, Hugh
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Beard, Nigel
Ennis, Jeff


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Etherington, Bill


Begg, Miss Anne
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Fisher, Mark


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Benton, Joe
Flint, Caroline


Best, Harold
Flynn, Paul


Betts, Clive
Follett, Barbara


Blackman, Liz
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Boateng, Paul
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foulkes, George


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Galloway, George


Browne, Desmond
Gapes, Mike


Buck, Ms Karen
Gardiner, Barry


Burden, Richard
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Burgon, Colin
Gerrard, Neil


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Casale, Roger
Grogan, John


Caton, Martin
Gunnell, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Chaytor, David
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clapham, Michael
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Healey, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heppell, John


Clelland, David
Hesford, Stephen


Clwyd, Ann
Hill, Keith


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cohen, Harry
Hoey, Kate


Coleman, Iain
Hood, Jimmy


Colman, Tony
Hopkins, Kelvin


Connarty, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howells, Dr Kim


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cousins, Jim
Hutton, John


Cox, Tom
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cranston, Ross
Illsley, Eric


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cummings, John
Jenkins, Brian


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)



Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davidson, Ian



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dismore, Andrew
Keeble, Ms Sally


Donohoe, Brian H
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Doran, Frank
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dowd, Jim
Kemp, Fraser


Drew, David
Khabra, Piara S


Drown, Ms Julia
Kidney, David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kilfoyle, Peter


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)





Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Laxton, Bob
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lepper, David
Rooker, Jeff


Leslie, Christopher
Rooney, Terry


Levitt, Tom
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Ruane, Chris


Linton, Martin
Ruddock, Joan


Lock, David
Salter, Martin


McAllion, John
Sarwar, Mohammad


McAvoy, Thomas
Savidge, Malcolm


McCabe, Steve
Sawford, Phil


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sedgemore, Brian


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sheerman, Barry


Macdonald, Calum
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McDonnell, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Singh, Marsha


McIsaac, Shona
Skinner, Dennis


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McNulty, Tony
Snape, Peter


MacShane, Denis
Soley, Clive


Mactaggart, Fiona
Spellar, John


McWalter, Tony
Squire, Ms Rachel


McWilliam, John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Steinberg, Gerry


Mallaber, Judy
Stevenson, George


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stott, Roger


Martlew, Eric
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Meale, Alan
Stringer, Graham


Merron, Gillian
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Mitchell, Austin
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Moffatt, Laura
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moran, Ms Margaret
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Moriey Elliot
Timms, Stephen


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)



Mudie, George
Tipping, Paddy


Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Touhig, Don


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Trickett, Jon


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Norris, Dan
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Vis, Dr Rudi


O'Hara, Eddie
Walley, Ms Joan


Olner, Bill
Ward, Ms Claire


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Wareing, Robert N


Palmer, Dr Nick



Pearson, Ian
White, Brian


Pendry, Tom
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Pickthall, Colin
Wicks, Malcolm


Pike, Peter L
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Plaskitt, James



Pollard, Kerry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Pond, Chris
Wills, Michael


Pope, Greg
Winnick, David


Pound, Stephen
Wise, Audrey


Powell, Sir Raymond
Worthington, Tony


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wray, James


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Primarolo, Dawn
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Prosser, Gwyn
Wyatt, Derek


Purchase, Ken



Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rapson, Syd
Mr. David Hanson and


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Jane Kennedy.






NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Mian, Richard
Hunter, Andrew


Amess, David
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Jenkin, Bernard


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Keetch, Paul


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Key, Robert


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Baker, Norman
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Baldry, Tony
Kirkwood, Archy


Ballard, Jackie
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Beggs, Roy
Lansley, Andrew


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Leigh, Edward


Bercow, John
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lidington, David


Blunt, Crispin
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Boswell, Tim
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Loughton, Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Luff, Peter


Brand, Dr Peter
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Brazier, Julian
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Browning, Mrs Angela
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Burnett, John
Malins, Humfrey


Burns, Simon
Maples, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis



May, Mrs Theresa


Chidgey, David
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Chope, Christopher
Moore, Michael


Clappison, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Norman, Archie



Oaten, Mark


Collins, Tim
Öpik, Lembit


Colvin, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Cran, James
Page, Richard


Curry, Rt Hon David
Paice, James


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Pickles, Eric


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Randall, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
Rendel, David


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Robathan, Andrew


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Duncan, Alan
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Duncan Smith, Iain
St Aubyn, Nick


Evans, Nigel
Sanders, Adrian


Fabricant, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fearn, Ronnie
Shepherd, Richard


Flight, Howard
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Forsythe, Clifford
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Foster, Don (Bath)
Spring, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Fraser, Christopher
Steen, Anthony


Garnier, Edward
Streeter, Gary


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Stunell, Andrew


Gibb, Nick
Swayne, Desmond


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Syms, Robert


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gorrie, Donald
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Gray, James
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Green, Damian
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Greenway, John
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Grieve, Dominic
Townend, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Hague, Rt Hon William
Trend, Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Tyler, Paul


Hammond, Philip
Tyrie, Andrew


Hancock, Mike
Viggers, Peter


Harris, Dr Evan
Walter, Robert


Harvey, Nick
Wardle, Charles


Hawkins, Nick
Waterson, Nigel


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Wells, Bowen


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John





Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Yeo, Tim


Wilkinson, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Willetts, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Willis, Phil
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


Wilshire, David
and


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly agreed to.

DEREGULATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With the leave of the House, I shall put the Questions on motions 4 and 5 together.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I shall put them separately.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

MILLENNIUM LICENSING

That the draft Deregulation (Millennium Licensing) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 5th July 1999, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]

The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 7.

Division No. 264]
[10.39 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Alexander, Douglas
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Allan, Richard
Cann, Jamie


Allen, Graham
Caplin, Ivor


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Casale, Roger


Ashton, Joe
Caton, Martin


Atkins, Charlotte
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Baker, Norman
Chaytor, David


Ballard, Jackie
Chidgey, David


Banks, Tony
Chisholm, Malcolm


Barron, Kevin
Clapham, Michael


Battle, John
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Beard, Nigel
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Begg, Miss Anne
Clelland, David


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clwyd, Ann


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cohen, Harry


Benton, Joe
Coleman, Iain


Best, Harold
Colman, Tony


Betts, Clive
Connarty, Michael


Blackman, Liz
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Boateng, Paul
Corbett, Robin


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cousins, Jim


Brand, Dr Peter
Cox, Tom


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cranston, Ross


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Browne, Desmond
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Cummings, John


Buck, Ms Karen
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Burden, Richard
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Burgon, Colin
Dalyell, Tam


Butler, Mrs Christine
Darvill, Keith






Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)



Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Doran, Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dowd, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Drew, David
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Drown, Ms Julia
Keetch, Paul


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kemp, Fraser


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Khabra, Piara S


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kidney, David


Efford, Clive
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ellman, Mrs Louise
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Ennis, Jeff
Kirkwood, Archy


Etherington, Bill
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fearn, Ronnie
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Laxton, Bob


Fisher, Mark
Lepper, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Leslie, Christopher


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Levitt, Tom


Flint, Caroline
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Flynn, Paul
Linton, Martin


Follett, Barbara
Lock, David


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McAllion, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Foulkes, George
McDonagh, Siobhain


Fyfe, Maria
Macdonald, Calum


Gapes, Mike
McDonnell, John


Gardiner, Barry
McGuire, Mrs Anne


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McIsaac, Shona


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gerrard, Neil
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gibson, Dr Ian
McNamara, Kevin


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McNulty, Tony


Godsiff, Roger
MacShane, Denis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mallaber, Judy


Grogan, John
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hancock, Mike
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Martlew, Eric


Harris, Dr Evan
Meale, Alan


Harvey, Nick
Merron, Gillian


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Healey, John
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mitchell, Austin


Heppell, John
Moffatt, Laura


Hesford, Stephen
Moore, Michael


Hill, Keith
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hoey, Kate
Morley, Elliot


Hood, Jimmy
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mudie, George


Howells, Dr Kim
Mullin, Chris


Hoyle, Lindsay
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hutton, John
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Iddon, Dr Brian
Norris, Dan


Illsley, Eric
Oaten, Mark


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jenkins, Brian
O'Hara, Eddie


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Olner, Bill



Öpik, Lembit





Osborne, Ms Sandra
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pearson, Ian
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pendry, Tom
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pickthall, Colin
Stott, Roger


Pike, Peter L
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Plaskitt, James
Stringer, Graham


Pollard, Kerry
Stunell, Andrew


Pond, Chris
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pope, Greg
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pound, Stephen



Powell, Sir Raymond
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Primarolo, Dawn
Temple-Morris, Peter


Prosser, Gwyn
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Purchase, Ken
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Timms, Stephen


Rapson, Syd
Tipping, Paddy


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Rendel, David
Touhig, Don


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Trickett, Jon



Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rooker, Jeff
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rooney, Terry
Tyler, Paul


Rowlands, Ted
Vaz, Keith


Ruane, Chris
Vis, Dr Rudi


Ruddock, Joan
Walley, Ms Joan


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Ward, Ms Claire


Sanders, Adrian
Wareing, Robert N


Sarwar, Mohammad
White, Brian


Savidge, Malcolm
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sawford, Phil
Wicks, Malcolm


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sheerman, Barry



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Willis, Phil


Singh, Marsha
Wills, Michael


Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Brian


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Winnick, David


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wray, James


Snape, Peter
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Soley, Clive
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Spellar, John
Wyatt, Derek


Squire, Ms Rachel



Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. David Hanson and


Stevenson, George
Jane Kennedy.




NOES


Beggs, Roy
Swayne, Desmond


Blunt, Crispin



Brooke, Rt Hon Peter



Donaldson, Jeffrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Forsythe, Clifford
Mr. Douglas Hogg and


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Mr. Edward Leigh.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

CASINOS

That the draft Deregulation (Casinos) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 5th July 1999, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 12.

Division No. 265]
[10.50 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Ainger, Nick
Davidson, Ian


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Alexander, Douglas
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Allan, Richard
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Allen, Graham
Dean, Mrs Janet


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Dismore, Andrew


Ashton, Joe
Donohoe, Brian H


Atkins, Charlotte
Doran, Frank


Ballard, Jackie
Dowd, Jim


Banks, Tony
Drew, David


Barron, Kevin
Drown, Ms Julia


Battle, John
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bayley, Hugh
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Beard, Nigel
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Efford, Clive


Begg, Miss Anne
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Ennis, Jeff


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Etherington, Bill


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Fearn, Ronnie


Benton, Joe
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Best, Harold
Fisher, Mark


Betts, Clive
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Boateng, Paul
Flint, Caroline


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Follett, Barbara


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Browne, Desmond
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Buck, Ms Karen
Foulkes, George


Burden, Richard
Fyfe, Maria


Burgon, Colin
Gapes, Mike


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gardiner, Barry


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Cann, Jamie
Godsiff, Roger


Caplin, Ivor
Golding, Mrs Llin


Casale, Roger
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caton, Martin
Gorrie, Donald


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Chaytor, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clapham, Michael
Grogan, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hancock, Mike


Clelland, David
Hanson, David


Clwyd, Ann
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Coffey, Ms Ann
Harris, Dr Evan


Cohen, Harry
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coleman, Iain
Healey, John


Colman, Tony
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Connarty, Michael
Heppell, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hesford, Stephen


Corbett, Robin
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoey, Kate


Cousins, Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cox, Tom
Howells, Dr Kim


Cranston, Ross
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hutton, John


Cummings, John
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jenkins, Brian


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Darvill, Keith






Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Pike, Peter L



Plaskitt, James


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pope, Greg


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pound, Stephen


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keetch, Paul
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kemp, Fraser
Prosser, Gwyn


Khabra, Piara S
Purchase, Ken


Kidney, David
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rapson, Syd


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rooker, Jeff


Laxton, Bob
Rooney, Terry


Lepper, David
Rowlands, Ted


Leslie, Christopher
Ruane, Chris


Levitt, Tom
Ruddock, Joan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Linton, Martin
Sanders, Adrian


Lock, David
Sarwar, Mohammad


McAllion, John
Savidge, Malcolm


McAvoy, Thomas
Sawford, Phil


McCabe, Steve
Sedgemore, Brian


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sheerman, Barry


McDonagh, Siobhain
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McDonnell, John
Singh, Marsha


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Skinner, Dennis


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


McNamara, Kevin
Snape, Peter


McNulty, Tony
Soley, Clive


MacShane, Denis
Spellar, John


Mactaggart, Fiona
Squire, Ms Rachel


McWalter, Tony
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McWilliam, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stevenson, George


Mallaber, Judy
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stott, Roger


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Martlew, Eric
Stringer, Graham


Meale, Alan
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Merron, Gillian
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)



Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Mitchell, Austin
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Moffatt, Laura
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Moore, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moran, Ms Margaret
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morley, Elliot
Tipping, Paddy


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Mudie, George
Touhig, Don


Mullin, Chris
Trickett, Jon


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Norris, Dan
Vaz, Keith


Oaten, Mark
Vis, Dr Rudi


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Walley, Ms Joan


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Wareing, Robert N


O'Hara, Eddie
White, Brian


Olner, Bill
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Öpik, Lembit
Wicks, Malcolm


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Palmer, Dr Nick







Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Willis, Phil
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Wills, Michael
Wyatt, Derek


Winnick, David



Wise, Audrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Keith Hill and


Wray, James
Jane Kennedy.




NOES


Baker, Norman
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Beggs, Roy
Rendel, David


Chidgey, David
Stunell, Andrew


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Swayne, Desmond


Forsythe, Clifford



Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. Douglas Hogg and


Leigh, Edward
Mr. Eric Forth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

PETITION

Crawley Hospital

11 pm

Laura Moffatt: I wish to present a petition organised by my local newspaper, the Crawley Observer, which is signed by some 4,000 of my constituents who are extremely worried about the reconfiguration of hospital services in Crawley. Residents are extremely worried that, if services are reorganised and removed from the town, it will be to the detriment of Crawley.
The petition states:
The Petition of the Crawley Observer and residents of Crawley Declares that we oppose plans to downgrade Crawley Hospital.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to do all in his power to ensure that Crawley Hospital retains its casualty department, maternity ward, children's ward and intensive care unit.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

National Curriculum (Sustainable Development)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]

Mr. Peter Luff: I am exceptionally grateful to have the opportunity of raising this subject at a topical time in the development of the national curriculum. The only interests I have to declare are membership of my local wildlife trust and my local Country Landowners Association committee. I have no links, either direct or indirect, with any genetically modified food company—indeed, I have serious concerns about the sustainability of GM technology in the British environment.
I have a number of constituents who take a close interest in the environment and sustainable farming. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Stephen Martin whose close involvement with many environmental initiatives and organisations—and specifically with the World Wide Fund for Nature—inspired me to seek this debate.
It was a meeting with the WWF, organised by Dr. Martin, that persuaded me that this was an important issue, and that organisation has been very helpful in preparing me for tonight's debate. I am particularly grateful to another Martin, Peter Martin—I am assured that he is no relation to Stephen—who is head of education at WWF, for his patient guidance and advice. I have also received the views of two other organisations for which I have a high regard: the wildlife trusts and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
I do not know about you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but when I was young my dreams were regularly of a nuclear holocaust. That dreadful mushroom cloud soared into the sky of my nightmares on too many restless nights. I am glad to say that my nightmares are now more mundane, but my waking fear is very real. It is about the consequences for our environment if we do not approach it with greater respect and understanding. That, in turn, could have huge consequences for the welfare of billions of human beings on this planet.
I do not know about you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but sometimes I despair as I watch the contempt shown by too many of our fellow citizens for the environment in which they live. Litter, graffiti and waste seem to characterise our urban lives. The countryside is defaced by thoughtless fly tipping, and, even worse, it faces more serious threats from agricultural polices that force farmers into behaviour that many of them dislike intensely.
Recycling may have caught the imagination of some, but how much fossil fuel has been used making special journeys to take small quantities of bottles, cans and newspapers to recycling facilities? How much energy and how many chemicals are then used to do the recycling?
If I may be allowed to make a slightly partisan comment in an essentially non-partisan speech, I believe that the Government are guilty of some muddled thinking on this subject. They are trying to use the mask of sustainability to justify what are actually only simple tax increases. Look at the proposed pesticides tax, for example. However—I see the way that you are looking at me, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that is a matter for another debate.
Our understanding of sustainability is still very limited and that is why this debate is so important. Sustainability is a new buzzword, often twisted to suit the argument of whoever is using it at the time. That is why children must be taught to think critically about what it means. Our world has to work out how to meet present human needs and improve the quality of life without diminishing the Earth's capacity to provide for the needs of future generations. That is what I mean by sustainability.
I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not one who believes that education is the answer to all our problems. I am intensely reluctant to dump on teachers all the problems of our society at the end of the second millennium. Problems such as declining democratic participation rates, teenage pregnancies, loss of basic social skills and increased vandalism and crime all seem capable of solution, according to many, simply if teachers educate pupils about those matters in our schools. That is profoundly wrong. Teachers are there to do many things, but above all their purpose is to teach the academic subjects, to inspire young people to wider horizons and to develop their skills, wherever they lie.
Teachers are not there to solve the whole kaleidoscope of problems that confront modern Britain. If they are asked to spread themselves too thinly, their attention will be diverted from their real tasks as teachers, but—this is a big but—there are some things, essentially factual in nature or lying beyond any reasonable expectations of pupils' parents or guardians, that can best be taught in schools rather than in families. Among those is the importance of education for sustainable development.
The 1992 Rio conference concluded that
education is critical for promoting sustainable development and improving the capacity of the people to address sustainable issues.
Since then a lot has happened under Conservative and Labour Governments, but there is still a serious gap between official endorsement and practical educational policy. Now, the review of the national curriculum for England gives us a unique opportunity to put that right. The consultation closes this Friday and the final curriculum documents will be sent to schools this autumn. The revised curriculum will become statutory from September 2000.
One of the key recommendations of the sustainable development education panel, which was set up by the Government, was that
sustainable development be identified within the aims and purposes of the revised curriculum".
It is only fair to say that the Government have met that objective in their proposals, and it has been strongly welcomed by the environmental movement. I associate myself with that welcome.
In the Secretary of State's introductory comments to "The review of the national curriculum in England, the Secretary of State's Proposals", he says:
Each subject makes a distinctive contribution to pupils' learning and development…History, geography and science give an essential understanding of our place in the modem world, including the importance of sustainability".
On page 5 of the other main document, "The Consultation Materials", we read that the school curriculum should develop pupils'
awareness, understanding and respect for the environments in which they live, and secure their commitment to sustainable development at a personal, local, national and global level.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has told me that it views that statement as the most important breakthrough for education for sustainable development for over a decade.
There is, therefore, much that is encouraging, but warm words and good intentions must translate into concrete reality if they are to mean anything. Those decisions will be set in concrete very soon. They will not, I hope, be revisited for many years, so they must be got right now.
For geography, those decisions have certainly been made correctly. In that section of "The Consultation Materials", the distinctive contribution, programmes of study and attainment targets all fully address geography's role as a key deliverer of sustainable development education. Concepts such as global citizenship, environmental change and values and attitudes are all well represented. I congratulate the Department on that and hope that when the Minister winds up, he will be able to confirm that that will remain the case in the final curriculum.
Elsewhere, however, all is not quite so rosy. As I have already made clear, increased prescription and increased work loads for teachers are not the answer and they are not necessary. A few small changes here and there in most of the other subjects would make all the difference. They would ensure that teaching effort is well used to further the cause of sustainable development without adding to teachers' burdens or even introducing new subjects into the curriculum.
Let us consider science. That is specifically and rightly identified by the Secretary of State as providing essential understanding of the importance of sustainability, but, incredibly, no reference to sustainability is made in the distinctive contribution or in the attainment targets of the proposals for the national curriculum. The programmes of study include content that is important for sustainable development education, but without proper detail.
Those deficiencies need to be remedied, and the easiest way to do so would be to add a suitable phrase to the distinctive contribution and to flesh out the programmes of study a little. To take one example at random, at key stage 4, it is suggested that pupils be taught
the basic principles of cloning and genetic engineering",
but there is no mention of the environmental and ethical implications. A little more thought about the detail would bring great dividends.
History is another subject that is specifically mentioned in the Secretary of State's proposals as providing "essential understanding" of the "importance of sustainability". However, no reference to sustainable development is made in the "distinctive contribution" section for history; nor is there direct reference to it in the programmes of study or attainment targets. That is despite the fact that many of the programmes could easily be directed towards a better understanding of the complex links between society, the economy and the environment. Those deficiencies could easily be remedied with just a few words, but what a difference those few words would make.
Most of the other subjects provide many opportunities for elements of sustainable development education to be fully implemented. For example, the "distinctive contribution" section for different subjects says:
Information and Communication technology. An essential part
of ICT capability is being discriminating about information and the ways in which it may be used, and making informed judgments about when and how to apply aspects of ICT to achieve maximum benefit. Pupils also develop understanding of the implications of ICT for working life and society". How easily that could be expanded to explore our interdependence in a shrinking world. How easily it could offer children first-hand experience of other societies, economies and their environments.
Design and technology, we are told,
contributes to the school curriculum by preparing all young people to participate in a rapidly changing technological world. It enables them to understand how to think and intervene creatively to improve the world, combining their knowledge with understanding of aesthetics and function.
There is no mention anywhere of how to choose materials for their sustainability. Cost, durability and appearance are all rightly mentioned, but not sustainability. Again, one word could make a great difference.
In art and design, we are told that pupils
learn how to become actively involved in shaping environments, making informed, aesthetic choices and practical decisions which enrich their personal and public lives".
That is absolutely right, but when it comes to shaping environments, sustainability is a vital dimension. Again, there is no mention of it in the detail—that is easily put right.
There are similar opportunities in other subjects as diverse as English and mathematics. Unless there are powerful statements of the importance of sustainable development education, and unless the vital role that all subjects can play in its delivery is both endorsed and explained, sometimes the implicit and at other times the potential opportunities are in danger of being overlooked.
There are other concerns, too. One is the limited reference made to education for sustainable development in the non-statutory guidelines for personal, social and health education and the complete lack of any mention of it in the recommendations for teaching citizenship. Education for sustainable development seems to be added as an afterthought, with no introductory preamble that identifies it as one of the key global concerns of the 21st century.
I know that the Minister understands the importance of education for sustainable development. He knows about the likely impact of climate change on the British coastline, the consequences of household growth for new housing locations, the implications of ozone depletion, public concern about genetically modified organisms, the worldwide concern about fresh water supplies, and so on. The apparently limited profile given to the importance of education in addressing major national and international concerns is ironic given the commitment of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to achieving sustainable development, and the growing number of large corporations that are making major and very public commitments to such development.
Among those large organisations are the Government themselves. In the very good document, "A Better Quality of Life—A strategy for sustainable development for the UK", the Prime Minister says:
That is why sustainable development is such an important part of this Government's programme. We must ensure that our economy
thrives, so we can deliver the schools and hospitals we want, the jobs we need, and provide opportunities for all. But we must ensure that economic growth contributes to our quality of life, rather than degrading it. And that we can all share in the benefits.
Talking about sustainable development is not enough. We have to know what it is, to see how our policies are working on the ground. We must hold ourselves to account—as a government, but also as a country. Because the only way in which we will succeed is if we all play our part".
It is difficult to argue with that, although it is disappointing that there is only very passing reference in the document to the role of education in achieving sustainable development. I would have hoped—this is intended as friendly criticism—that the Department for Education and Employment would register its commitment to sustainable development education with a little more conviction.
Non-statutory guidelines should be produced to explain how education for sustainable development can be integrated across the curriculum, identifying the unique contribution that each subject, including citizenship, can play. That would not add to teachers' or pupils' burdens, as it would provide focus and purpose for and—often, for young people—relevance to much of what is already being taught.
The panel for education for sustainable development made several specific recommendations in its first report. It discussed the curriculum issues that I have largely been talking about this evening. It talked about the need to monitor outcomes of education for sustainable development and to give governing bodies specific responsibility in that area. It talked about giving Ofsted the duty to evaluate education for sustainable development in its inspection framework. Finally, it said that education for sustainable development should be incorporated into all initial teacher training, continuing professional development and governor training, and that local education authorities should give encouragement and support to schools to conduct all their activities sustainably.
You can see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that getting the curriculum right is not enough in itself, but it will be a big step in the right direction. Other issues will also need to be addressed. The Minister, when he winds up the debate, can do more for the environment and for posterity in his speech tonight than many of us could ever dream of. I hope that he will do that.
In school terms, the report on the Government so far must be, "Pleasing progress overall, but I had hoped to see just a little more commitment in certain subject areas." I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I hope that next term's report can be a little less guarded.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on securing the debate. He laid down quite a


challenge in his final remarks. When he was talking about our muddled thinking, I found it entertaining that he described his interests as being a member of the Country Landowners Association and the wildlife trust in his constituency. Some might say that there was an element of muddle in some of those issues, too, when they came around the corner.
I strongly believe, as do the Government, in educating children about sustainable development. It needs to be at the core of the education system. That is why we established the sustainable development education panel, which has worked very hard and produced a stimulating, wide-ranging first annual report, covering all phases of education and training and all types of informal learning.
I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the panel, which was chaired by Sir Geoffrey Holland, the former permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Employment, who knows these issues fully and with whom I and my colleagues have discussed the recommendations in very great detail. We are working with the panel and consulting on the recommendations for education and training. I am placing copies of the report in the Library for the reference of all Members.
The panel defined sustainable development in the following way:
Education for sustainable development is about the learning needed to maintain and improve our quality of life and the quality of life for generations to come. It is about equipping individuals, communities, groups, businesses and government to live and act sustainably; as well as giving them an understanding of the environmental, social and economic issues involved. It is about preparing for the world in which we will live in the next century, and making sure that we are not found wanting"—
or learning in, through or about our environment, our society and our economy, with the specific aim of leaving the planet as we would wish to find it, or better. I think that that is a fine definition, and it is one with which the Government entirely associate themselves. That thinking has informed all our consideration on the future of the national curriculum.
As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire said, the national curriculum is under review at present. The aims of the review are clear. They are: increased flexibility and reduced prescription in the curriculum, giving teachers more scope to use their professional discretion; a full and rounded entitlement to learning for all pupils; continued emphasis on literacy and numeracy; further opportunities for work-related learning in schools; and helping young people to develop a fuller understanding of their role and responsibilities as citizens in a modern democracy.
In accordance with those aims, we have listened to the representations by the sustainable development education panel to raise the profile of sustainable development in the school curriculum, and that has informed our proposals for the national curriculum. Only today, I read the response to that consultation from the Council for Environmental Education. I shall take the opportunity to place on record what the council said about that approach. It said:
Education plays a significant part in the UK's Sustainable Development Strategy, and quality of life issues, including social exclusion, have a significant impact on the ability of schools to raise standards of achievement. The Council for Environmental Education is particularly pleased that this is reinforced within the Secretary of State's proposals … for the revised national curriculum in England. The Council for Environmental Education welcomes the

Government's acknowledgment in recent policy documents and reports that education and sustainable development are interdependent.
The council is right, and I very much appreciate its statement to the effect that we have risen to the challenge in the curriculum that we have proposed.
I shall provide a number of examples, some of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, of specific proposals in the national curriculum through which we have sought to take into account the issues of sustainability.
First and foremost, the science curriculum teaches children that actions have consequences, and that some of those consequences are irreversible. That is one of the keys to understanding sustainable development. It is at the core of the science curriculum and runs through all the key stages. From five to 16, pupils must study a theme on living things in their environment which draws out those points.
At key stage 3, for ages 11 to 14, the curriculum requires pupils to learn how living things and the environment can be protected in a way that is consistent with the demands of society, and to learn about the distinction between renewable and non-renewable resources—a key concept in the idea of sustainability. At key stage 4, for ages 14 to 16, pupils must be taught about the impact of human activity on the environment and its relation to social and economic factors, and about energy efficiency and the environmental implications of generating energy.
Those are all important aspects of the science curriculum in the consultation in which we are currently engaged, and put sustainable development at the core of the education system.

Mr. Luff: The Minister has rightly quoted from the response of the Council for Environmental Education. He has just dealt with science. It is worth putting on record that the CEE also states in its response:
Both single and double science are weak, particularly at key stage 1 and 2, and need further strengthening, particularly with reference to biodiversity and interdependence.
I hope that that does not contradict what the Minister is saying but fleshes it out.

Mr. Clarke: That does not contradict my comments at all. The consultation on the national curriculum in which we are engaged is a genuine consultation. We welcome not only the contribution of the hon. Gentleman this evening but the comments of a wide range of organisations, which will help to improve particular aspects of the national curriculum. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want those remarks, valid as they are, to detract from the thrust of the CEE's view that, for the first time in history, the Government have taken seriously the challenge of putting sustainable development at the core of the national curriculum.
That is true of the geography curriculum too, where environmental change and sustainable development are introduced at all key stages, including key stage 1 for ages five to seven. In geography, we highlight the importance of sustainable development through additional references to the use of resources and the effect on the environment. We make it an explicit requirement to explore the idea of sustainable development and how it relates to changes in places and environments, and to consider the implications of sustainable living.
Similarly in design and technology, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, pupils must reflect on and evaluate ideas from a variety of perspectives, including use, production and marketing, and environmental, cultural and aesthetic considerations. Those ideas are at the core of a sustainable approach to design and technology. In planning, children are encouraged to consider moral, economic, social, cultural and environmental issues.
I maintain that, for the first time in these subjects, we have a concept of sustainable development which is at the core of the curriculum that our children in every school in Britain will learn. That raises to a different plane from what has gone before the extent to which we are addressing and considering such issues.
The major change is the introduction of a framework for personal, social and health education and citizenship. I should put it on record that unlike the rest of the curriculum, which is to be implemented from September 2000, these changes will come into effect from September 2002, should Parliament agree to the orders later this year.
The two key frameworks for PSHE and citizenship provide ample and profound opportunities to consider sustainability issues through learning about the world as a global community, the rights and responsibilities of consumers, employers and employees, and the challenges of global interdependence and responsibility. Pupils will learn about what improves and what harms their local environment, different ways to look after it and the impact of economic choices on the environment.
We are acknowledging in a way that has never been done before that our children are growing up in a world that is so interdependent and changing so rapidly in so many profound and different ways that they will be seriously disadvantaged if they cannot grasp, control and direct the future of the world. That means understanding it from the perspective of sustainability, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted in his speech.
Those ideas—the relationship between the individual, the environment and society—are at the core of our ideas for PSHE and citizenship. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support the statutory instruments when they are laid before the House later this year. There has been some dissent among Conservative Members. However, the far-seeing Conservative Members who served on the panel dealing with the statutory instruments are strongly in favour of the development. I am confident that the Opposition will support them when they come before the House. Having heard the hon. Gentleman's speech, I know that we shall be able to rely on his support.
We can genuinely say that our proposal places sustainable development at the core of the national curriculum and the education of our children for our future. The consultation is genuine and, when it closes, we shall consider the precise considerations that are put forward, including those made by the hon. Gentleman this evening. In the light of those, we may make various small modifications to aspects of the curriculum. What will not change is our determination that sustainable development shall be at the heart of our national curriculum, because that is at the heart of the future of the whole of our population and that of the world.
Other programmes complement the national curriculum and affect the way in which people operate in schools. For example, we seek to focus on travel to school—safe routes to school and all the issues around that, which ensure that children, from an early age, think how their own conduct in travelling to school can have an impact on the environment.
We have signed up to the international global learning and observations to benefit the environment programme and implemented it in England. The programme links sustainable development to the state-of-the-art technology of satellite imaging and the internet, precisely to bring these issues graphically home.
We have funded the Going For Green campaign, the Tidy Britain group and the eco-schools programme, and we are encouraging schools throughout the United Kingdom to improve the impact that they have on the local environment through activities involving children, teachers, governors and the local community.
In September, I will be launching the green code for schools, a CD-ROM developed by Going for Green to communicate the Government's "Are You Doing Your Bit?" campaign to schools, which is imaginative and effective, has been put together in partnership with teachers and is designed to absorb and involve pupils directly in green issues. At the same time, I shall write to head teachers, to stress our aim to support the sustainable development content of the national curriculum through the green code programme.
Earlier this year, I, with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Madam Speaker, participated in the Children's Parliament on the environment, a positive initiative which Madam Speaker strongly supported, and which allowed young children to put their views about sustainability on the agenda. I commend to the hon. Gentleman, if he has not yet seen it, the action plan that emerged from that, the Government's response and the Hansard of their debate and Select Committee produced by Her Majesty's Stationery Office—whose headquarters is in my constituency—which I shall place in the Library.
Those debates show how passionate young children are about the world in which they are growing up, how keen they are to learn about how the environment, economy and society all link together in affecting our quality of life and the quality of life of people throughout the world, and how keen children are that the decisions that we make now mean that the world that they inherit as adults is in a fit state for them. They are also keen that they should have the skills and knowledge that they need to make decisions in all aspects of their lives that contribute to sustainable development.
I conclude by reinforcing the Government's determination to place sustainable development at the core of the national curriculum because it is so important to the future. Yet again, I reaffirm our readiness to listen to helpful contributions such as those made by the hon. Gentleman. I also reaffirm that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating as the curriculum rolls out. We have a massive programme for developing resources to pay for high-quality teacher training and a much wider range of resource materials. That will help teachers to help schools address those issues in a positive and constructive way.
We very much appreciate not only the contribution made by the sustainable development education panel but the work done by organisations such as the Council for Environmental Education and a large range of positive and committed organisations—for example, the World Wide Fund for Nature, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned—that are totally committed to turning these ideas into reality. I urge them not to sit back and leave

the Government to do the work in the national curriculum, because the way in which it develops will depend on the commitment of all those people and organisations to making those ideas real. It has been a pleasure to respond to the debate and reassure the House of our commitment to those ambitions.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eleven o'clock.